autotask_create_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions field mapping and date format but omits side effects (e.g., persistent write), response structure, required permissions, or idempotency. The agent is left guessing about return values.

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 three concise sentences (32 words) with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and packs useful format hints. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (31 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to specify expected return values (e.g., created contract ID), error behavior, or prerequisites like company existence. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds little value. It reiterates status values and date format already present in schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not provide additional semantic clarity beyond 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 'Create a new Contract in Autotask', providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like autotask_create_company or autotask_update_contract.

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 implies usage by stating 'Create a new Contract', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like autotask_update_contract or autotask_search_contracts. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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