append_api_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It describes what to store but does not disclose whether the tool overwrites or appends, or any side effects. The description is adequate but lacks details on behavior beyond storage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary usage scenario. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Very concise and well-structured.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear overview of the tool's purpose and what the contract should contain. It covers the essential categories. Minor missing detail on formatting, but overall complete enough.

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 lists the key fields (method, path, auth, etc.) but adds little extra meaning beyond that. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Use this tool after creating or modifying an API endpoint. Store only the durable endpoint contract.' It specifies the verb (store) and resource (API contract), and distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding full source code.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'after creating or modifying an API endpoint.' It also tells what not to store ('Do not store full source code.'). However, it does not directly contrast with sibling tools, though the context makes it clear that this is for API contracts specifically.

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