Create a new contract for a resource. Provide resource ID, start date, and type (full-time, part-time, freelance) to add it, with optional status, end date, and hourly rate.
Create a new contract
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| startDate | Yes | ||
| hourlyRate | No | ||
| resourceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only conveys that the operation creates a resource; it does not mention side effects, required relationships, idempotency, or response behavior. It is not misleading, but it materially under-discloses what happens when invoked.
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 states the essential action and resource. However, it leans toward under-specification rather than balanced concision, omitting any detail that would help an agent call the tool safely.
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 six-parameter mutation with 0% schema description coveragechen no output schema and no annotations, a one-sentence description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine valid values, the meaning of resourceId, or the expected behavior after creation.
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 0%, and the description adds no parameter meaning. The required resourceId, startDate, and type, plus optional status/endDate/hourlyRate, are left with only names and enums; the description does not clarify semantics such as what resourceId refers to or expected date/rate formats.
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 'Create a new contract' clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (contract), matching the tool name. It is unambiguous against the search/get/update sibling tools, though it does not add distinguishing scope or field-level detail.
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 given about when to use this tool versus boond_contracts_search, boond_contracts_update, or contracts_get. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related entities, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.