Api contracts dora contractual arrangement retrieve

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

The description claims the endpoint allows contracts to be "edited", while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. That is a direct conflict about whether this tool mutates state, and it gives no other behavioral context (no ID/path semantics, no scoping, no return shape).

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 a single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise by size. However, that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification and, worse, embeds the misleading 'edited' claim, so the one sentence does not fully earn its place.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the main carrier of meaning, yet it never says what a DORA contractual arrangement record contains or how this endpoint differs from the many other contract endpoints. Read-only annotations help, but the description actively undercuts them, leaving the agent unable to call this confidently.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter surface the description needs to explain. The absence of any identifier parameter for a single-object retrieve is notable but is a schema concern, not something the description omits.

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 says only that it is an "API endpoint that allows contracts to be viewed or edited", which restates the resource generically without naming the actual object (a DORA contractual arrangement) that the tool name specifies. It does not distinguish this from the prominent sibling ciso_assistant_api_contracts_retrieve, so an agent cannot tell which one returns what.

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 ciso_assistant_api_contracts_retrieve, ciso_assistant_api_contracts_list, or ciso_assistant_api_contracts_object_retrieve. The only signal is the implied 'viewing contracts', which is not enough for selection among many near-identical siblings.

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