Create Purchase Contract

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, potentially destructive operation (destructiveHint true), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the create action. It does not explain side effects, permissions needed, or whether the operation is reversible, which is a significant gap given the absence of that info in annotations.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then listing required fields. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured with bullet points for readability.

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 objects) and absence of an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention what the return value is (e.g., contract number), error handling, or prerequisites like data existence, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying the 'either material or materialGroup' requirement per item, which is not enforced in the schema. It also lists all required header fields concisely, helping the agent understand the composite structure.

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 at least one item, using specific verbs and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like purchase order or requisition creation, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as purchase order create or purchase requisition create. It only lists required fields, which is helpful but lacks context for selection.

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