contract-execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'changes state' which indicates this is a write/mutation operation, but doesn't describe transaction costs, gas requirements, confirmation times, error conditions, or what happens on failure. For a state-changing blockchain operation, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste. Every word contributes to the core purpose. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 state-changing blockchain operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, transaction lifecycle, or important behavioral aspects. The agent would need to guess about many critical operational details.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have provided context about how these parameters interact.

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 ('execute a function') and target ('on a smart contract'), with the qualifier 'that changes state' indicating this is a write operation. It distinguishes from sibling 'contract-query' which would be read-only, but doesn't specify what kind of functions or state changes are possible.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bank-send', 'delegate', or other contract-related operations. The description implies it's for state-changing contract interactions, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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