dosare_registry_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that terminated contracts become closed dosare and expired ones are flagged, which is valuable. But it does not mention potential errors, idempotency, or side effects of passing invalid contracts, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, information-dense sentence with clear structure: the main instruction first, followed by a relevant behavioral note. No redundant phrasing, and it efficiently conveys the key points.

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 (handling different contract statuses) and no output schema, the description explains the main workflow but omits details about return values, error handling, and the exact structure of the contracts parameter. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema covers only companyId with a description; contracts is an untyped array. The description adds a hint about the existingDosarId field and points to the source tool, but does not fully specify the expected structure of contract objects, leaving some ambiguity given the 50% schema coverage.

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 action (create dosare), the specific resource (rental-contract dosare for registry contracts), and even specifies the source of the contracts (from dosare_registry_proposals). It distinguishes itself from the generic dosare_create by focusing on registry contracts, making it clear when this tool is appropriate.

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 provides explicit guidance on which contracts to pass (those with existingDosarId null from proposals) and explains the behavior for terminated and expired contracts, which implies the intended workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use a sibling like dosare_create instead, but the context is clear enough.

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