propose_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the workflow prerequisite, the output status (proposed/waiting for signature), and the important scoping rule (only Class A/B, not C). It also explains when cadence and source_material should be included. However, it omits mention of idempotency behavior and return format, though idempotency_key is present in the schema.

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 long but appropriately structured for a complex tool. It front-loads the prerequisite (read skill first) and organizes the class hierarchy clearly. Some redundancy exists in the cadence and source_material elaborations, but the length is justified by the need to prevent misuse.

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 tool's complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it covers prerequisites, workflow, parameter scoping, and post-submission behavior (user sees draft card and can adjust Class B/cadence). It does not address return values or error cases, but provides enough context for correct 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 83% (>80%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by grouping parameters into Class A/B/C and specifying under which conditions cadence and source_material should be provided (e.g., if discussed in conversation, or if the learner brings their own book). This supplements the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states that the tool submits a TeachingContract draft to LS with setup_status: proposed (waiting for learner signature), and defines the exact scope: only Class A + Class B, plus cadence/source_material exceptions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_contract_cadence or void_contract.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use: after the contracting dialogue is finished, and requires reading skill intake/contract-establish first. It also gives when-not-to-use: Class C is not accepted and is instead handled via the signing desk form, while cadence/source_material are exceptions if discussed. This is strong, actionable guidance.

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