deploy_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the storage cost requirement but fails to disclose that deploying may overwrite existing contract code, requires signing privileges, or produces transaction-related side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It delivers the core purpose and one key requirement without unnecessary verbosity.

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 deployment tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the relationship between wasm_path and wasm_base64, whether the contract initialization is part of this step or separate, or what the return value is, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including alternatives like wasm_path and wasm_base64. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: deploying a WASM smart contract to a NEAR account. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on deployment distinguishes it from sibling tools like upgrade_contract and initialize_contract.

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. The only additional note about storage cost balance is a prerequisite rather than usage direction, and there is no mention of exclusions or scenarios favoring other sibling tools.

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