create_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several important behaviors: returns a signing URL, can e-mail signers, requires exactly one of content/document, and notes that links go out once the contract is ready for signing. It also mentions the 5-sends-per-signer limit and the 3 MB PDF limit. It doesn't mention whether creation is reversible or what happens to drafts, but it covers the most critical behaviors.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose and output in the first sentence, then the key constraint (exactly one of content/document) in the second. It doesn't waste words, though it could arguably be slightly more structured. The schema carries the detailed parameter semantics, so the description doesn't need to be longer.

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 tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering the essential context: what it creates, what it returns, the two input modes, and the signer e-mail behavior. It doesn't describe the return format in detail (e.g., JSON structure of the signing URL), but since there's no output schema, a bit more detail on the response shape could help. Still, the description is largely complete for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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 adds value by clarifying the relationship between `content` and `document` (exactly one), and by explaining the signers behavior (shared signUrl vs. e-mailed links). It doesn't repeat every parameter detail, which is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('a new contract for signing'), and the two input modes (HTML content or PDF file). It also names the key output (a signing URL) and the optional e-mail behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_contract, list_contracts, get_contract, and delete_contract.

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 gives clear context: use this to create a contract for signing, and it explicitly says to give exactly one of `content` or `document`. It also mentions that attachments require calling list_attachment_types first, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer update_contract or list_contracts, though the verb 'create' makes that fairly obvious.

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