deploy_contract

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

With no annotations, the description adds some context by noting the returned values and mainnet unsupported, but it omits critical behavioral traits: deployment is a paid, state-changing transaction requiring a funded source account, and it may incur fees. The description does not disclose these side effects or prerequisites, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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 concise, using only two sentences: the first states the primary action, and the second covers return values and an important network restriction. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the deploy action.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action, returns, and network exclusion. However, it lacks explicit prerequisites like 'wasm must be compiled' and 'source account must be funded', which are important for correct invocation. The schema partially compensates, but the description itself is not fully complete.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The description's mention of 'using the Stellar CLI' and 'source account' is redundant with the schema, but the schema already covers each parameter's meaning, warranting the baseline score.

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 the tool deploys a compiled .wasm file to testnet or futurenet, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_contract or invoke_contract, and also mentions the return values (contract ID and transaction hash).

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 indicates the target networks and explicitly excludes mainnet, providing clear usage boundaries. It implies usage after building a wasm file, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool beyond the mainnet exclusion.

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