add_equivalence_principle

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 only says 'Add Equivalence Principle validation' but does not disclose whether the contract_code is modified in place or returned as new, what side effects occur, or what success/failure conditions exist. This is insufficient for a mutation 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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the core function. It avoids extraneous detail and is front-loaded with the key action.

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 complexity (4 parameters, one enum, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the Equivalence Principle, what the validation does, how tolerance affects behavior, or what the tool returns. The tool modifies contract code but no indication of the result format.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking the validation_type to 'non-deterministic operations', but does not add meaning beyond what the schema's enum and descriptions already provide. Tolerance's default and optional nature are already in the schema.

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 the action ('Add Equivalence Principle validation') and the target resource ('contract method'), and adds a purpose ('for handling non-deterministic operations'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_contract_template' which generate new code rather than modify existing methods.

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, what prerequisites are required, or when alternatives might be better. It does not mention that the tool modifies existing contract code or any conditions for its use.

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