accept_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 behavior disclosure. It indicates a sign-off action, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the contract transitions to an accepted state, whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens if the base_revision is stale.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler and the key acceptance criterion is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity, but it earns its place and does not repeat the tool name.

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 five required parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and a workflow with many sibling contract/review tools, the description is incomplete. It leaves out the workflow position, side effects, role requirements, and parameter roles, relying too heavily on inferred domain 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 description coverage is 0% for five required parameters, and the description does not explain any of them. Terms like contract_id and actor_id may be guessable, but base_revision and actor_role are left entirely unexplained, and decision_note's purpose is not described.

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 action ('signs off') on a specific resource (the contract) and adds the defining criterion: the invariants adequately cover the goal. It is not a tautology and is reasonably distinguishable from reject_contract or evaluate_contract, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool should be called when a bound acceptor concludes that invariants adequately cover the goal. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, what conditions must be true before calling, or how it relates to reject_contract, waive_deviation, or seal_contract.

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