autotask_create_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by noting that field names match the Autotask REST API exactly and clarifying status values and date format. However, it does not disclose behavior such as what the tool returns (e.g., contract ID), required permissions, or side effects (e.g., whether creation triggers notifications). The coverage is moderate; some key behavioral aspects are omitted.

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 three sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the function, the second clarifies field naming, and the third provides specific format hints. No redundant or overly verbose content.

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?

The tool has 31 parameters (6 required) and no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain the overall contract creation process, required steps, or expected results. It lacks guidance on how to structure a valid request beyond the schema, leaving the agent underinformed for a complex operation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats information already in the schema (status values and date format) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. The note about matching the API is helpful for context but not parameter semantics. Overall, minimal added value.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a new Contract in Autotask,' specifying the action (create) and resource (contract). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like autotask_update_contract and autotask_search_contracts, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'create,' indicating when to use it (to create a new contract). However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools for related operations (e.g., searching or updating contracts). The description lacks prerequisites or context about the creation process.

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