bind_contract_turn

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 communicates the core binding action and the important rule that restore alone is insufficient, but it omits mutation effects, permission requirements, idempotency, and reversibility.

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 short sentences and front-loads the core action before the critical constraint. Every sentence adds some signal, and there is no wasted wording.

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 complex contract-binding tool with 5 undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It gives the central purpose and one important rule, but lacks parameter semantics, operational context, and usage alternatives.

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?

There are 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain any of them. In particular, request_text, mode, actor_id, contract_ref, and ttl_minutes remain fully undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource pairing: binding the CURRENT user turn to one canonical Contract. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic state tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling bind_work_turn or contract_state tools.

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 sentence 'Restore state alone never authorizes this turn' implies that this tool is required after restoring state to authorize the current turn. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name sibling tools or prerequisites.

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