deploy_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides zero information about side effects such as gas costs, irreversibility, network requirements, or potential security implications of deploying a contract. The description is purely declarative and lacks any context about what happens during deployment.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words, achieving good front-loading. It is appropriately sized for the void it fills, though the minimalism contributes to under-specification.

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 deployment tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover what a successful deployment returns, possible errors, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to rely on external knowledge.

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 parameters are already documented. However, the description does not add any additional meaning or clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., how blockchainId relates to the deployment). The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('deploy') and resource ('smart contract'), indicating a creation action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like create_token, which may also deploy contracts, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, intended scenarios, or cases where another tool (e.g., write_contract for interaction) would be more appropriate.

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