autotask_create_contract_service

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

No annotations are present, and the description only indicates a creation action. It does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on failure. The description fails to provide behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without elaboration.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context such as the expected return value (e.g., the created service ID) or constraints (e.g., cannot duplicate). The minimal description leaves the agent underinformed about the tool's complete behavior.

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 8 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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' the resource 'ContractService (service line item)' to an 'existing Contract', which is precise and distinguishes it from other creation tools like creating a contract itself.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'autotask_update_contract_service' or when not to use it. Preconditions (e.g., contract must exist) are implied but not stated explicitly.

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