create_contract_document

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

With no annotations present, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it merely states the action without explaining consequences, required initial state, or side effects. It does not mention that the document is created empty, whether existing documents are affected, or any permission requirements.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation and gets straight to the point.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not clarify what a 'document' is, note that attributes are optional, or indicate what is returned after creation. The sparse description leaves key aspects unaddressed for a mutation tool.

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 100%, with both parameters (attributes, contract_id) already described. The description adds no extra parameter context or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a clear action ('Create') and resource ('document for a contract'), effectively distinguishing from siblings like update_contract_document and delete_contract_document. It also implicitly contrasts with create_contract_document_from_template by omitting template functionality.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as create_contract_document_from_template or replace_contract_document_file. There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions provided.

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