Plan Contract Action

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, confirming safe, repeatable operation. The description adds that the plan is 'schema-validated', hinting at validation behavior. It does not detail return format or error handling, but the annotation coverage reduces the burden.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence of 12 words that front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 9 parameters, the description is minimal. It omits what the plan looks like, how to use the output, and whether planning is synchronous. While the annotations provide safety context, the description does not fully equip an agent to understand the tool's process or output.

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?

All 9 parameters are described in the schema, so the description adds no additional meaning. It only reinforces the high-level purpose. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('execution plan'), and explicitly lists the supported action types ('deploy, read, or write'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'call_contract' (execution) and 'plan_contract_workflow' (multi-step planning).

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 use for planning before execution, and the presence of sibling tools like 'call_contract' and 'plan_contract_workflow' provides contextual differentiation. However, it lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance.

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