unifier_create_contract_with_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses two write gates (confirmed flag and UNIFIER_ALLOW_WRITE env var), the atomic single-request semantics, and that the resulting state depends on BP configuration. It does not cover failure behavior, reversibility, or whether existing records are touched.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the gating requirements, then the field-naming caveat. No filler, though the final clause about BP state is slightly vague.

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?

A create-with-nested-attachments mutation with no annotations and no output schema needs more disclosure than this. Prerequisites and naming convention are covered, but the response shape, attachment constraints, and error/partial-failure behavior are absent.

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 must compensate. It adds genuine meaning for record_fields (must use uDesigner technical names), for confirmed (must be true), and clarifies what attachments contain (documents and review reports), but leaves project_number, bpname, and attachment limits (max 8, base64 size) undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (creates a single BP Contract record) plus its distinguishing scope: attachments and review reports created in the same REST operation. An agent can tell this apart from the read-oriented siblings and the generic unifier_rest_request.

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 gives operational preconditions (confirmed=true and UNIFIER_ALLOW_WRITE=true) but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as the generic unifier_rest_request, nor any when-not guidance. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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