Create Work Order Contract

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

Annotations indicate the tool modifies data (readOnlyHint=false) and is not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it creates a new object and returns HTTP 201 on success, consistent with annotations. No contradictions, but it does not elaborate on side effects, idempotency, or required permissions.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences plus API metadata. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. Minor redundancy ('Creates a new Commitments' appears twice) but overall efficient.

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 description lacks details on return value structure (no output schema), error handling, permissions, or prerequisites. It provides the API endpoint and required parameters but is only partially complete for a mutation tool without output schema.

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 schema describes all parameters clearly. The description lists required parameters and adds a useful note about multipart/form-data for attachments. However, it does not explain the structure of the 'work_order_contract' object or other fields, relying on the schema.

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 it creates a work order contract, a subtype of commitments. The verb 'create' and resource 'work order contract' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling contract creation tools like create_commitment_contract or create_purchase_order_contract, though the name implies the scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists required parameters and API details, but does not explain selection criteria such as contract type, project context, or prerequisites.

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