draft_authoring_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a 'draft scaffold', implying a non-destructive, preliminary action. However, it does not disclose if this is reversible, any side effects, or if it modifies existing state. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and inputs. No unnecessary words. It earns its place.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists (though not detailed here), the description is moderately complete. It explains the core action and inputs but omits details about the output or how 'rewrite' affects behavior. With 0% schema coverage, more parameter context would improve completeness.

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 compensate. It mentions 'human_brief' as an input, but 'run_id' and 'rewrite' are not explained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names. Baseline for 0% coverage is low, but the description does partially clarify 'human_brief'.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'contract draft scaffold', specifying the inputs 'current schema summary plus a human brief'. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like 'finalize_authoring_contract' or 'review_authoring_contract', which could cause confusion about when to use this vs. other contract-related tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a schema summary or human brief ready, nor any exclusion criteria. The description is too vague for an agent to determine appropriate context.

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