autotask_create_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that status values are numeric and dates are ISO format, which adds some value, but it fails to describe side effects (e.g., whether the creation is idempotent), required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on success (e.g., returns contract ID). The description is insufficient for a write operation with 31 parameters.

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 three short sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the tool's action, noting API compatibility, and clarifying status and date formatting. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words. This is an ideal length given the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having 31 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., contract ID), mention prerequisites (e.g., company must exist), or cover edge cases. The schema descriptions for parameters are thorough, but the tool-level description lacks completeness for an agent to confidently invoke it without external knowledge.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description's contributions are less critical. It adds that field names match the Autotask REST API exactly, which provides context beyond the schema descriptions. However, the status mapping and date format are already documented in the schema. Thus, the description offers marginal added value, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 'Create a new Contract in Autotask,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It immediately distinguishes this tool from sibling create tools (e.g., autotask_create_company, autotask_create_contact) by highlighting the contract focus. The additional details about field names matching the REST API and date formats further clarify the tool's purpose.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to create a contract) but provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives like autotask_update_contract. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone, lacking concrete exclusions or comparisons.

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