deploy_contract

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that deployment is an on-chain transaction requiring gas, broadcasting to a network, or that it depends on a private key. The description simply states the action without revealing side-effects or requirements.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the main action and core inputs. It is concise and readable, though it could include more useful context. The concise structure is appropriate for the brief content it contains.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, network defaults, gas requirements, or when to use it relative to other deployment tools. The description only covers the basic 'what' without the 'how' or 'why' context needed for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter is documented in the schema. The description only references 'bytecode' and 'constructor arguments', which adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It is baseline adequate but does not further clarify parameter relationships or defaults.

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 action: 'Deploy a smart contract from bytecode and constructor arguments'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'from bytecode and constructor arguments' detail distinguishes it from sibling deploy tools like deploy_create2 or deploy_proxy.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like deploy_create2, deploy_proxy, or write_contract, nor does it state any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for deployment.

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