volkern_create_contrato

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new contract' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether this is an irreversible action, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to address critical behavioral aspects for a creation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is maximally concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, within the scoring framework it earns full points for having zero wasted words and being front-loaded with the essential action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful creation, what gets returned, how errors are handled, or any prerequisites. The description fails to provide the contextual information needed for an agent to use this tool effectively in a real workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides zero parameter information beyond the tool name implying 'contract' creation. However, with 70% schema description coverage, the input schema documents most parameters well (e.g., 'titulo' as required contract title, date formats, payment method enums). The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does substantial documentation work, though the description adds no value beyond what's in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('contract'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'volkern_create_contrato_from_cotizacion' or explain what makes this contract creation tool different from others in the system.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'volkern_create_contrato_from_cotizacion' (which creates contracts from quotations) and 'volkern_send_contrato' (which sends contracts), there's no indication of when this basic creation tool is appropriate versus those specialized alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.