create_acceptance_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important authorization restriction (Integrator-only) and a structural constraint (base_revision=0). However, it does not mention lifecycle effects, idempotency, failure conditions, or what happens after the contract is opened.

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 sentence with no filler, and the most important constraints are front-loaded. It is concise, though perhaps too terse given the tool's parameter 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?

Given 11 parameters, 6 required, no annotations, and a complex domain with many sibling contract lifecycle tools, this description is incomplete. The output schema covers return values, but the description still fails to explain parameter meaning, usage context, or behavioral consequences.

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 must compensate for 11 undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for base_revision by stating it must be 0 and hints at authorization via actor_role, but provides no explanation for contract_id, goal_statement, actor_id, title, or the other required fields.

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 ('Open') with a clear resource ('a goal-level acceptance contract') and adds a key constraint ('Integrator-only, base_revision=0'). It is understandable on its own, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like accept_contract or reopen_contract.

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 implies when this tool should be used—when opening a new acceptance contract—but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as accept_contract, seal_contract, or evaluate_contract. The Integrator-only note is a prerequisite rather than usage direction.

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