save_contract_terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the write appends a new version rather than overwriting, and it enforces a human-confirmation workflow gate. It does not clarify how idempotency interacts with version creation (whether a repeat call makes a second version or returns the first), which is the one ambiguity an agent would care about.

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 behavioral sentence is front-loaded, followed by a compact two-argument block where each line earns its place. No filler or repetition of the tool name; the only mild inefficiency is the generic 'Args:' header for a two-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the write semantics, the human-approval gate, and both parameters. For a simple two-parameter mutation this is close to complete, with only the idempotency-versus-versioning interaction left unstated.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: proposal_id is explained as the id returned by propose_contract_terms, and confirmed is explained as meaning the person reviewed and approved the terms, not merely a boolean flag. Both parameters gain meaning that the bare schema titles ('Proposal Id', 'Confirmed') do not provide.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Save proposed contract terms as a new version') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling propose_contract_terms by consuming that tool's proposal_id. The versioning scope ('as a new version') further clarifies what the write produces, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_contract_versions or states what the save does to prior versions.

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?

It states a clear precondition: 'Only call after the person has explicitly confirmed them,' and the args section reinforces that confirmed must be true after human review. The upstream dependency on propose_contract_terms is named, so the agent knows the required call order. There is no explicit when-not guidance beyond the confirmation gate.

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