stellar_contract_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about the fact that this invokes cargo, writes WASM artifacts to disk, copies files to out_dir, can be long-running, or that print_commands_only makes it a dry run. The only behavioral hint is 'from Rust source code'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves it under-specified rather than optimally structured for a 9-parameter tool.

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?

For a mutating build tool with 9 parameters, a nested meta object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits output/artifact behavior, dry-run semantics, and toolchain requirements. An agent cannot tell what it gets back or what side effects occur.

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 100% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already explains package, profile, features, manifest_path, out_dir, etc. The description adds no extra meaning (e.g. that meta keys are injected as env vars or that the WASM build target is wasm32-unknown-unknown), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Build a Soroban contract') plus the input modality ('from Rust source code'), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as stellar_contract_optimize or stellar_contract_deploy, which also act on built contracts.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. 'run after stellar_contract_init, before stellar_contract_deploy/optimize'), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer ordering from the tool name alone.

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