write_host_contract

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

The description discloses the primary side effect—writing files and forbidding unbound skills—but does not clarify whether existing files are overwritten, appended, or require a pre-existing contract. With no annotations, more detail on the write behavior would be expected.

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 sentences, highly concise, and immediately states the action and outcome without extraneous details.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and effect. It lacks context on what 'current binding contract' refers to, but that may be domain-specific and not required for basic usage.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool writes the current binding contract into specific files (CLAUDE.md and .cursor/rules) and explains the content (list only bound skills, forbid others). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bind_skills or list_skills.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'in one shot' hints at convenience, there is no mention of conditions that would make this preferable to, say, bind_skills or manually editing files.

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