TerminateCurrentContract

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a scheduling action, but does not disclose whether the scheduling is reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., service disruption), or if confirmation is required. The behavior is partially described but lacks important context about consequences and lifecycle.

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 sentence, which is concise but excessively brief for an action that involves scheduling contract termination. It does not front-load critical information like prerequisites or effects. Every word is used, but the lack of detail undermines its utility.

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 complexity of contract termination scheduling and the absence of output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, errors, prerequisites, or how to specify termination details. The agent cannot infer necessary input or expected outcomes.

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 description does not mention the 'body' parameter at all. The input schema has a single 'body' object with only 'Description: Request body' which provides no structural or semantic detail. The description adds no value over the schema, leaving the agent without any guidance on what fields are needed for the termination request.

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 'Schedule termination of your current contract at the end of the commitment.' It uses a specific verb ('Schedule termination'), identifies the resource ('current contract'), and indicates the timing ('end of the commitment'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'ReactivateCurrentContract' and 'DeleteNextContract' which are related but opposite actions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., having a current contract) or when not to use it (e.g., if immediate termination is needed). There is no mention of the scheduling workflow or how to undo/cancel the scheduled termination.

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