Contract Testing: Publish Consumer Contracts

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

The description contradicts annotations: 'readOnlyHint: true' but the tool writes data (publish). No additional behavioral details are provided (e.g., overwrite behavior, idempotency side effects).

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 followed by a bullet list of parameters, no fluff, front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (6 params, nested contracts array) and absence of output schema, the description does not fully explain how to construct the contracts array (e.g., base64 content) or the relationship between pacticipantName and consumerName. Schema covers some gaps but description could add value.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists parameters with brief explanations but adds no meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'contracts' is only described as 'Contracts to publish').

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 the tool's function: 'Publish one or more consumer Pact contracts to the Pact Broker or PactFlow, with branch and tag metadata.' It specifies a unique verb (publish) and resource (consumer contracts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'contract-testing_publish_provider_contract'.

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 notes the toolset ('Contracts') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., publish_provider_contract). Usage context is implied but not elaborated.

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