write_contract

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 does not mention side effects (e.g., permanent state changes, gas costs), authentication requirements, or failure modes. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap—the agent cannot anticipate the consequences of invoking the 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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, 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?

For a write operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash), whether it requires prior deployment, or how it interacts with the broader contract lifecycle. The minimal description fails to provide essential context for safe and correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, as all three parameters (contractId, functionName, params) have descriptions. The description's 'write data' loosely implies that params are the data to write, but it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 states a clear action ('write data') and resource ('smart contract'), which distinguishes it from read_contract and deploy_contract. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar write tools like transfer_erc20 or mint_token, so it lacks sibling differentiation beyond the basic read/write/deploy distinction.

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 such as deploy_contract or transfer_erc20. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The usage is implied only by the phrase 'write data', which is insufficient for an agent deciding between multiple write-capable tools.

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