register_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one important behavior: declared-id collisions are preserved and warned, never overwritten. However, it omits other potentially relevant behaviors such as whether this creates a new record or modifies existing state, error semantics, permission requirements, or side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded: the core operation appears first, followed by the collision guarantee. Both sentences earn their place, though the extreme brevity leaves important gaps for a tool with eight parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 tool with eight parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the required fields, the meaning of the contribution, how warnings are surfaced, or how this relates to sibling contract tools. It is minimally useful but clearly incomplete.

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%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only references declared_id through collision behavior. The other seven parameters (kind, title, actor_id, checksum, family_id, storage_system, physical_location) receive no explanation of their meaning, constraints, or relationships.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('a contract contribution'), which moves beyond the tool name and indicates the core operation. It also adds collision-handling behavior that hints at append semantics, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like import_contract_bundle or create_family.

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 explicit guidance on when to use register_contract versus alternatives such as import_contract_bundle or resolve. The phrase 'Append a contract contribution' implies a use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are provided to help an agent choose correctly.

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