deploy_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It omits that deployment is an irreversible on-chain write, that it requires a funded wallet and spends fees, or what happens on name collision (contractName is described as 'unique' only in the schema). The 'Tip' paragraph consumes space without disclosing any behavior.

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 core sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the second sentence is an off-topic cross-sell for `earning_opportunities` that does not help an agent invoke this tool. Removing it would cost nothing.

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 a mutating, fee-spending deploy operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description never says what a successful call returns (e.g., a contract address or txid) or what preconditions exist beyond the schema's per-field notes. It is under-specified for the risk profile of the operation.

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%, and the schema itself documents fee presets/clamping, sponsored relay requirements, contractName format, and codeBody. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema is doing all the work.

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: deploy a Clarity smart contract to the Stacks blockchain. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like call_contract or get_contract_info. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it contrasts with, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given. The only extra sentence is a promotional tip pointing at `earning_opportunities`, which is unrelated to deciding whether to deploy a contract. An agent gets no routing help between this and alternatives like call_contract or broadcast_transaction.

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