createContractPhase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lacks information about side effects (e.g., whether the phase is appended or inserted), required permissions, reversibility, or atomicity. The only behavioral clue is the phase_type enum constraint.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey the purpose, usage guidance, and a key parameter hint. No extraneous words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description does not cover return value, preconditions (e.g., contract must exist), or the structure of the pricings array. It is adequate but leaves gaps that require inference from the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The tool description adds limited extra value (e.g., clarifying the phase_type enum, but the schema already lists the values). Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 but does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 adds a new phase to an existing contract, and lists specific use cases (add-on expansions, mid-contract changes, distinct billing periods). This effectively differentiates it from siblings like createContractPhasePricing and createContract.

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 provides explicit use cases ('add-on expansions, mid-contract changes, or creating distinct billing periods with different pricing'), guiding the agent on when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare directly with alternatives (e.g., updateContract for modifying phases).

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