Create Purchase Contract

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

The description indicates creation (destructive, write), consistent with annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or error scenarios. The annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond field constraints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then lists required fields. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 (9 parameters, nested items, no output schema), the description covers key required fields and item structure but omits the 'additionalFields' parameter and return value details (e.g., contract ID). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces required fields and item constraints (material or materialGroup), but adds limited meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 tool creates a purchase contract (outline agreement) with items. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like s4_purchase_contract_list and s4_purchase_contract_get.

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 to create a purchase contract but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs create, or compare with purchase order creation). No exclusions or context are given.

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