contracts_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that there is no 'notes' parameter and that the UI activity/notes section is not API-accessible, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions required, or return behavior, leaving gaps for a creation tool.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every word earns its place, providing the core action and a key constraint without fluff.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief but covers a critical constraint. However, it lacks information on what the tool returns, validation rules, or potential failures, which would be expected for a creation tool to be fully complete.

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?

All 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'description' is the only text field and that there is no 'notes' parameter, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 'Create a new contract,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like contracts_delete, contracts_get, contracts_update by focusing on creation. The note about the missing 'notes' field further clarifies the tool's behavior.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as contracts_update for modifications. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, success conditions, or when not to use it. The note about the description field being the only text field is a constraint, not a usage guideline.

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