feegow_create_benefit_contract

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

The description indicates it is a write operation ('ESCRITA — altera dados') and provides the HTTP endpoint and requirement. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or error behavior. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but is only partially transparent.

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 concise, including purpose and a technical note in brackets. It is front-loaded with the main action. The length is appropriate, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating the note.

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 nested parameters and no output schema, the description is missing return value information and typical usage contexts. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a creation tool with complex input.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions for nested objects. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond noting the endpoint and write nature. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides sufficient semantics.

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 creates a benefit card contract ('Cria um contrato do cartão de benefícios') and distinguishes it from siblings like list and update variants. The verb 'cria' and resource 'contrato do cartão de benefícios' are specific.

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 mentions a prerequisite (FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus update_benefit_contract or list_benefit_contracts. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives are given.

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