contract_deploy

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

Without annotations, the description provides key behavioral traits: it signs a contract-creation transaction, uses to: null and data: bytecode, returns the deterministic CREATE address synchronously, and mentions pricing. It does not cover potential failure modes or gas estimation, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 paragraph that efficiently conveys essential information: the operation, bytecode requirements, return value, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While structured bullets could improve readability, the current form is concise and informative without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (contract_address) and its synchronicity. It covers idempotency briefly. It could mention other possible return fields (e.g., call_id) or failure handling, but the essential information for an agent to understand the tool's output is present.

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 already covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds significant value by explaining that bytecode must be full creation calldata concatenated client-side, that run402 does not compile, and that idempotency_key ensures same call_id. This goes beyond the schema to clarify usage.

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 'Deploy a smart contract from a KMS signer', specifying the verb (deploy) and resource (smart contract). It distinguishes from siblings like contract_call and contract_read by detailing the contract creation transaction structure and synchronous address return. The description also provides unique details about bytecode assembly and pricing, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (for deploying new contracts) by contrasting with contract_call in pricing. It explicitly states that run402 does not compile Solidity, setting correct expectations. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for interaction, the context from sibling tools and the clear deployment focus make usage guidelines strong.

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