volkern_send_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. It states the action ('send') but lacks details on side effects (e.g., triggers email, updates contract status), permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool that likely interacts with external systems.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('send a contract', 'to the client', 'for signature') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what happens after sending (e.g., contract status changes, email delivery confirmation), error handling, or response format. For a tool that likely involves external communication, more context is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('contratoId' and 'mensaje') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters are used to send a contract, which is already clear from the tool name and schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('send') and resource ('contract') with the purpose ('for signature'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'volkern_get_contrato' (retrieve) and 'volkern_create_contrato' (create), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'volkern_send_cotizacion' (send quote) beyond the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., contract must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot send if already signed), or related tools like 'volkern_get_contrato' for checking contract status before sending. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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