create_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'create', which implies a write operation, but does not mention side effects, validation requirements, whether a draft is created, or what the response contains. This is minimal transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and object, though it lacks additional helpful context that could make it more informative.

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 schema has 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain contract lifecycle context, relationships to thirdparties, or when to use optional date fields. Sibling tools like list_contracts are not referenced for follow-up actions.

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% with complete descriptions for all five parameters (date, socid, date_end, date_start, note_public). The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Créer un nouveau contrat client' uses the specific verb 'Créer' (create) and identifies the resource as 'contrat client' (customer contract). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'list_contracts' and other create_* tools for different entities.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., creating a thirdparty first), typical scenarios, or related tools that might be preferred.

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