create_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a decent job: it declares name as the sole required field, states that duration/notice/periodicity/billing are in MONTHS (GLPI convention), that supplier_id triggers a Contract_Supplier linkage, and that the result then contains the '_supplier_link' key. It omits auth/permission needs and other side effects, but the disclosed conventions are genuinely useful.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the bullet list keeps each sentence focused on one parameter. No filler; the structure maps cleanly to the schema.

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?

For an 11-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete but leaves contract_type_id and accounting_number entirely undocumented and gives only a partial picture of the return shape. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for 8 of 11 params: it adds date format (AAAA-MM-JJ), the month unit convention for four numeric fields, the HTML-not-Markdown constraint for comment, and the behavioral effect of supplier_id. contract_type_id and accounting_number are left undocumented, keeping it short of 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Crée un contrat'), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like update_contract or delete_contract beyond the verb. Clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_contract or when a contract should instead be linked to a supplier/type. Field-level docs are provided, but no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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