create_contract_a

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses auto-settlement on hash match, no human approval needed, refund/expiry behavior, collateral forfeiture, and that the function returns a confirmation or error. This gives the agent a complete picture of the tool's side effects.

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 efficiently structured: summary, behavior explanation, usage guidance, and a numbered Args list. No sentence is wasted; the prose is tight and the parameter descriptions are concise yet complete.

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 complex 10-parameter creation tool with no annotations, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, prerequisites, detailed parameter semantics, and return behavior. There are no obvious gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does, with units (groth), defaults (subnet_id, epoch, required_collateral, spec_hash), constraints (job_id uniqueness, 64-char hex hash), and practical examples (asset_id 0/47, expiry_block = current_block + 10000). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a Mode A (Hash-verified settlement) Idios escrow contract.' It clearly explains what the tool does and differentiates it from Mode B (create_contract_b) by detailing the hash-verified auto-settlement mechanism.

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 usage guidance: 'Use Mode A for deterministic outputs where the exact deliverable is agreed before the contract starts.' It also states a prerequisite (both parties must agree on result_hash). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools like batch_create_contracts.

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