Open Kioku Create Change Contract

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

The description reveals key behaviors: it writes to .ok/contracts by default, can be transient, preserves plan_change for backwards compatibility, and creates versioned contracts. Annotations are neutral, so no contradiction; the description adds useful context beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core function and storage behavior in the first sentence. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (7 parameters, oneOf constraint, output schema present), the description covers the main workflow, storage, and use case. It implicitly relies on the schema for constraints but provides sufficient 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., 'set store=false for a transient contract'), but the parameters are already well-described in the schema. No significant new meaning is added.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('versioned change contract from a task or saved plan'). It clearly distinguishes the tool's function from siblings like 'get_change_contract' and 'verify_change_contract' by focusing on creation and storage.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use when a plan needs a durable verification contract for later review or CI evidence.' It also provides context for the 'store' parameter. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.

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