midl_deploy_contract

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation. The description reinforces this with 'Deploy,' but adds no additional behavioral details beyond the three deployment paths. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., gas costs, reverts, contract address generation), leaving some behavioral expectations implicit.

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 extremely concise: one introductory sentence followed by three succinct bullet points. Every element adds unique value, and the numbered list ensures readability. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema), the description thoroughly covers all deployment pathways. However, it omits the return value (commonly the contract address or transaction hash). While not critical for invocation, this missing detail slightly reduces completeness. Nonetheless, the description excels in guiding parameter selection.

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%, yet the description adds significant value by grouping parameters into three logical options (template, source, pre-compiled) with clear mappings. This hierarchical structure transforms a flat 9-parameter schema into an actionable decision tree, greatly aiding correct tool invocation.

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 'Deploy a smart contract' and enumerates three distinct methods (template, source code, pre-compiled) with their associated parameters. It uniquely identifies this tool's purpose among many sibling tools focused on reading, bridging, and transferring, leaving no ambiguity.

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 explicitly provides three deployment options and their required parameters, guiding the agent on when to use each method. While it doesn't include when-not-to-use scenarios, the structured options effectively differentiate usage contexts. No sibling tool serves the same purpose, so no need for exclusion advice.

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