pws_set_contract_gimmick

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds key context: it defaults to preview, supports both preview and set modes, and verifies persistence. This helps the agent understand side effects and safety posture. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The BETA warning and action verb are front-loaded, and the description is easy to scan.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides some useful context (active contract, preview default, persistence verification) but omits details about the 'confirmed' parameter and what exactly is returned after preview vs. set. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the gimmick and contractId implicitly, and the preview default, but leaves the 'confirmed' parameter entirely unexplained. The preview-or-set semantics add value, but incomplete parameter documentation prevents a higher score.

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 (PREVIEW OR SET) and resource (gimmick on an active player-company contract). It distinguishes from sibling pws_set_contract_persona by specifying the field being modified, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (for setting/previewing contract gimmicks) and notes the 'active contract' qualifier, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Compared to examples like 'use search_calls_extensive instead', this lacks explicit differentiation.

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