import_contract_bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'one explicit operation' implying atomicity but doesn't disclose side effects: does it create a family, contract, and slices all at once? Are there any side effects like triggering workflows or validation? The description vaguely says 'onboard' but doesn't specify what changes to the system state occur.

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 short and to the point, with a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key concept of onboarding an existing contract plus slices. No filler. However, its conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 (11 params, nested slices array with free-form objects, no annotations, no output schema details), the description is grossly insufficient. An agent would not know what slices should contain, what the relationship between family and contract is, or what the output represents. The description needs to explain the structure of slices and the overall operation flow.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter-level detail. With 11 parameters and 6 required, the agent needs to understand the meaning of family_key, declared_id, slices, etc., but the description gives no hint. The schema only provides titles and types, not semantics.

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 the verb 'Onboard' and the resource 'existing contract plus its existing slices', and 'in one explicit operation' implying atomicity. But it doesn't distinguish from siblings like register_contract or start_slice, and the term 'onboard' is vague (could mean create, import, link).

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With siblings like register_contract, start_slice, create_family, the description doesn't explain what distinguishes this operation from those, nor does it mention prerequisites or context such as existing contract data.

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