contract_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and purpose but does not mention side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens to existing data. This is a significant gap 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without waste. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices essential detail for brevity.

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 11 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what each parameter means, how to structure a contract, or what constraints apply. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool with the provided information.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. Yet it does not explain any of the 11 parameters (title, statement, tags, subject, inputs, outputs, etc.) or how they relate to 'observable behavior.' The description adds no value beyond the schema's bare field names.

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 a specific action ('Create a contract memory') and its purpose ('for observable behavior of functions/APIs'), which differentiates it from sibling memory types like bug, decision, or assumption. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 the many sibling creation tools (e.g., bug_create, decision_create). It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the type name alone.

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