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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds the key behavioral detail that it does not publish. This makes the side-effect profile clear without contradicting the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the key output and side-effect constraints. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers purpose, output destination, and the non-publishing side-effect, which is sufficient given the simple parameter set and the presence of annotations. It could mention how the draft payload is intended to be used, but the create_thread reference supplies that context.

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% and the description only names the same parameter categories found in the schema. It adds minimal meaning beyond the existing per-parameter descriptions, so this stays at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('turn a completed task into a... field note') and resource, and clarifies that it returns a draft payload for create_thread rather than publishing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_thread and publish_plan.

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?

Provides clear context for when the tool is used—preparing a draft field note for later creation—and explicitly notes that it does not publish. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the draft-for-create_thread framing is sufficient guidance.

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