create_api_contract

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the action and location, omitting important details such as whether existing contracts are overwritten, what 'minimal' entails, required fields, and whether any output is returned. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and object. It contains no redundant filler and is well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and a low-parameter count, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the minimal contract's structure, file format, naming conventions, or behavior on conflicts, leaving many essential details unaddressed.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. It does not mention 'name', 'title', or 'version' at all, leaving the agent to guess their meanings and how they map to the OpenAPI contract.

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 function with a specific verb ('Create'), a well-defined resource ('OpenAPI 3.1 contract'), and a location ('local contracts folder'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (update, delete, get, list) by focusing on the creation action.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when creating a new contract) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. Sibling names make the differentiation inferable, but the description itself does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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