stellar_contract_deploy

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing: it doesn't disclose that this submits a real transaction, spends fees, is irreversible on mainnet, or that ignore_checks bypasses safety validation. Marking a tool that can touch mainnet with public funds this tersely is a significant gap.

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. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally sized for a 10-parameter mutation 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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should carry real weight, but it supplies none of the missing context about cost, irreversibility, prerequisites, or the wasm_path/wasm_hash relationship. Adequate only as a label, not as invocation guidance.

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%, so every one of the 10 parameters is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (deploy) and resource (Soroban smart contract) plus the target network, which separates it from siblings like stellar_contract_build, stellar_contract_upload, and stellar_contract_asset_deploy (the latter deploys an asset, not a Soroban contract). It never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to deploy versus build, upload, or optimize first, nor any mention of the wasm_path vs wasm_hash choice or the build_only workflow. The agent is left to infer the entire deployment pipeline ordering from sibling names alone.

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