attach_contract_to_cash_cash_collected

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

The description does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but it adds no information about side effects, permissions, or state changes. It is consistent but lacks detail beyond what the annotations already suggest.

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 sentence, which is concise in length, but the content is so vague that it fails to convey meaningful structure or front-load essential information. It reads like a cryptic phrase rather than a useful summary.

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 the large number of sibling tools in the contract-to-cash domain, this description is grossly incomplete. It lacks context about the process, what 'terminalize' means, what evidence is required, and how this tool fits into the overall workflow, leaving an agent without sufficient information to use it 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?

The schema defines 4 required parameters (request, run_ref, company_ref, project_ref) but the description provides no explanation of their meaning, format, or relationships. With 0% schema coverage, the parameters remain entirely opaque.

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 'Terminalize only from independent accounting and settlement evidence' uses the vague verb 'Terminalize' and does not clearly state what resource or action it performs. It does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like attach_contract_to_cash_invoice_issued or register_contract_to_cash_cash_collection, leaving the purpose ambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or contexts where this tool is appropriate, making it impossible for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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