create_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new contract' without mentioning side effects, required permissions, reversibility, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool, this is a critical gap.

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 and is not verbose, but it is under-specified for an 8-parameter tool. Conciseness is not the same as under-specification; this sentence provides the bare minimum and forces the agent to rely entirely on schema and sibling context. It earns its place but fails to add sufficient value.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 8 parameters, yet the description gives no context about return values, side effects, relationships to other contract operations, or what constitutes a valid contract. Among many contract-related siblings (list_contracts, get_contract, update_contract, create_contract_payment, etc.), this description does not aid in understanding the tool's role beyond the literal action.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, each with a clear description of its meaning (e.g., advertiser is 'Advertiser ID'). According to the calibration baseline, the description need not add parameter info when the schema is this complete. It adds no extra semantics but is not penalized because the schema already carries the burden.

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 'Create a new contract' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (contract). It is not a mere tautology of the name, and it distinguishes from siblings like create_contract_document or create_contract_template by naming the contract entity itself. However, it provides no additional scoping details, so it doesn't fully differentiate from all contract-related operations.

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 such as update_contract, create_contract_document, or create_contract_template. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where a different tool should be chosen instead.

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