deploy_sc

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds critical behavioral context: the tool never handles private keys, returns an unsigned transaction for client-side signing, and reads files server-side. These details go beyond annotations and aid safe use.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information: action, parameter guidance, and security context. No wasted words.

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 the absence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, 1 required), the description covers the core workflow adequately. It explains the transaction lifecycle (build unsigned → sign client-side). It could improve by specifying the return format or error handling, but for an agent the description is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already describes each parameter. The description adds limited extra value: it explains the preference for wasmPath to avoid large context loads and mentions that network defaults to mainnet. However, it does not provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema offers.

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 it builds an unsigned smart contract deployment transaction for the Klever blockchain. It distinguishes the tool by specifying the two input methods (wasmPath and wasmHex) and their preference. No sibling tool performs deployment, so differentiation is inherently clear.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for deploying a smart contract) and gives guidance on parameter choice (prefer wasmPath). It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like invoke_sc, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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