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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the tool returns HTML and does not persist anything, which is critical for an agent to know. It also prescribes the user-visible review step before saving, adding meaningful behavioral context that the annotations do not cover.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the critical non-persistence caveat. Every sentence carries useful information without waste.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be fully described, and the description already notes HTML output. However, with no schema descriptions for the two parameters, the missing prompt semantics leaves the definition slightly incomplete for invocation.

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%, so the description needs to compensate for both parameters. It only implies projectUid through 'from the project' and says nothing about the prompt parameter or how it shapes the generated draft, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 verb and resource: generate an AI document draft from a project. It clearly distinguishes this from get_document and save_document by noting that it returns HTML and does not save or replace the current document.

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?

It gives clear usage context: show the generated HTML to the user before entering any later save workflow. It implies save_document is the follow-up action but does not explicitly name that sibling or discuss other alternatives.

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