stellar_contract_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'generate' but never discloses whether this is deterministic, purely offline, whether it touches the network, or what permissions/network access it requires — meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No waste, though it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.

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 five parameters, conditional requirements (salt and source_account required for wasm), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the conditional parameter interactions or what the generated ID looks like.

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 the schema already documents id_type, network, salt, asset, and source_account. The description only restates the asset/WASM split already encoded in the id_type enum, adding no format or dependency detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb 'Generate' plus resource 'contract IDs' with the two variant families (assets vs WASM) named. It clearly differs from deployment siblings like stellar_contract_deploy or stellar_contract_asset_deploy, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 states what it produces but gives no guidance on when an agent should compute a contract ID rather than deploy, alias, or read a contract. No prerequisites or workflow context are offered.

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