create_evaluation_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: insert-only semantics, version = max+1, supersession of the previous contract, JSON-encoded string tolerance, and the exact behavior of the powered-policy gate (enforces key presence, not adequacy; underpowered surfaces downstream rather than as a refusal). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then the versioning and gate mechanics. Dense but each sentence (versioning, JSON encoding, gate semantics, enforcement) earns its place; the gate discussion is the only slightly elaborate portion.

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 mutation tool with an output schema, annotations absent, and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call correctly: versioning model, encoding flexibility, gate expectations, and the programme-existence precondition. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by naming the design keys the gate checks (sesoi_d, target_power, min_evidence_rung) and clarifying that the JSON-string form for metrics/promotion_policy is accepted at call time.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create an evaluation contract for a programme') and situates it in the workflow ('RSI Phase 0'). The create-vs-get distinction from the sibling get_evaluation_contract is implied but never made explicit, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 '(RSI Phase 0)' tag implies where this sits in the flow, and 'programme must exist' is a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternative, and no statement of when creating a new version is warranted over reading the existing contract.

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