Create sub-contract

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the result is created in Draft status, issued by the signed-in user, that the subcontractor is not notified, and that no signature workflow is triggered. These are meaningful behavioral consequences 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?

The description is front-loaded and well organized, but the first sentence largely duplicates the second sentence's summary of the same action. It is still efficient and readable, with only minor redundancy.

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 draft-creation tool with no output schema, the description covers creation status, required contextual inputs, workflow limitations, notification behavior, and the returned object. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and understand what will not happen.

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 80%, so most parameter meaning is already documented. The description reinforces that the subcontractor must come from the Directory and lists the key inputs, but it does not add substantial syntax or format detail 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Creates a draft sub-contract') and clearly distinguishes this operation from retrieval siblings like get_sub_contract or list_sub_contracts. It also states the creation context: project, subcontractor from Directory, subject, agreement number, and date.

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?

It explicitly limits scope by saying the API cannot add scope items, terms, or send for signature, and notes those remain app steps. It also states the subcontractor is not notified, giving clear when-not guidance and setting expectations about what must happen elsewhere.

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