Api contracts create

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the write nature is already known from structured fields; the description adds nothing about validation failures, required fields, duplicate handling, or permissions. Worse, saying contracts can be 'viewed' nudges toward a read operation, which conflicts with the non-read-only annotation, though the boilerplate is too vague to call a hard contradiction.

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?

It is one short sentence, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy – every word is filler that could be replaced with a concrete statement of the create operation.

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 non-idempotent, open-world create endpoint with an entirely undocumented body and no output schema, the description provides none of the information an agent needs to call it safely or correctly.

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 0% and the single 'body' parameter is an untyped free-form object with no documented properties. The description supplies no information about what the request body must contain, so an agent has nothing to construct a valid create payload from.

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 sentence 'API endpoint that allows contracts to be viewed or edited' is generic DRF boilerplate that never states the tool creates a contract, despite the name being contracts_create. It is also ambiguous against siblings: contracts_list, contracts_retrieve, contracts_update and contracts_create all plausibly fit 'viewed or edited'. A reader cannot tell what this tool actually does that the others do not.

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 on when to use this versus contracts_partial_update, contracts_update, contracts_list or contracts_batch_action_create. Neither preconditions nor exclusions are mentioned.

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