deploy_create2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It identifies the action as a deployment, but does not disclose important side-effects like broadcasting an on-chain transaction, spending gas, requiring a funded private key, or the behavior of the default CREATE2 factory. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Deploy', and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a complex 7-parameter deployment tool with no output schema and no annotation support. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., deployed address, transaction hash), the implications of using CREATE2, or any prerequisites like default factory availability on different chains. For a tool with this complexity and no output schema, the description is incomplete.

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 descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, merely reinforcing that salt and network contribute to deterministic addresses, which is already implied by the schema descriptions. It does not explain any complex interactions like how abi relates to constructorArgs.

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 a specific action ('Deploy a contract') with the method ('using CREATE2') and the key benefit ('deterministic addresses across chains'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_contract and deploy_proxy, which likely use standard CREATE or proxy patterns.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need deterministic addresses across chains. This is clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like deploy_contract, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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