review_authoring_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'apply profile-aware defaults' but does not explain what 'profile-aware' means, what defaults are applied, or any side effects. It does not mention if the contract is modified, if approval is needed, or if the action is reversible. Significant behavioral details are missing.

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 very short (one sentence, 7 words) and front-loaded with the core action. It earns its place but is arguably too concise, omitting critical details. However, for a simple tool with one parameter, brevity is appropriate, and no unnecessary words are present.

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 one required parameter with no schema description and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain how 'contract_json' should be provided, what 'profile-aware defaults' means, or what the output schema contains. For a complex workflow involving authoring contracts, the description leaves major 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?

The input schema has one required parameter, 'contract_json', with no description coverage (0%). The tool description provides no additional meaning about this parameter beyond its name, such as format (JSON string), expected structure, or constraints. The agent has no information on how to construct the parameter value.

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 'Review a draft authoring contract and apply profile-aware defaults' uses specific verbs ('review' and 'apply') and identifies the resource ('draft authoring contract'). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'review_authoring_contract_for_run', which suggests a similar purpose but likely differs in scope. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.

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 such as 'review_authoring_contract_for_run' or 'finalize_authoring_contract'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., after 'draft_authoring_contract'), or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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