review_authoring_contract_for_run

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It says it persists a file but doesn't clarify if it modifies anything else, requires authorization, or has side effects. The output schema exists but isn't described.

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?

Very short and direct, but lacks necessary detail. Could benefit from a brief expansion to cover key aspects without being verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description doesn't mention what the output contains. Given the existence of many sibling tools for authoring, the description should clarify the role of this tool in the workflow.

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%, and description doesn't explain the 'run_id' parameter's purpose or constraints. The description only mentions the action, not the parameter meaning.

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 states it reviews a contract draft and persists a JSON file, but it doesn't specify what 'contract_review.json' contains or how it relates to the authoring run. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks detail to distinguish it from 'review_authoring_contract' sibling.

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 on when to use this vs. 'review_authoring_contract' or other sibling tools like 'confirm_authoring_stage'. The description implies it's for reviewing a contract, but no context on prerequisites or order of operations.

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