deploy-contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'deploy', implying a write operation. It does not disclose gas costs, irreversibility, transaction mining, or return values. The confirmAction note adds a security context but lacks other behavioral traits.

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 main action. It is concise with no fluff, but could be slightly more informative given tool complexity.

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 high complexity (deploying a contract, 8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It omits prerequisites (wallet, gas), deployment process, and expected outcomes. The safety warning is helpful but insufficient for completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It generically mentions 'ABI and bytecode', but does not clarify edge cases or relationships between parameters.

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 deploys a smart contract to the Rootstock blockchain using ABI and bytecode. It uses a specific verb (deploy) and resource (smart contract), and distinguishes from sibling tools like read-contract or transfer-tokens.

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, such as verify-contract or read-contract. The only guideline is the agent safety warning in confirmAction's description, but that is not about tool selection.

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