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

Annotations cover read-only and safe, and the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that nothing is saved, plus that unsupported traits are emitted as 'assumed' with assumedNotes. It also explains poolSize. This is substantial behavior disclosure beyond 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?

Front-loads what it produces, then the draft/save behavior, the handoff, and the poolSize definition. No filler, and the most consequential constraint (saves nothing) is stated early.

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?

For a 2-param read-only draft tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, non-persistence, the next tool to call, and one derived field. It could say more about what the spec's filters look like, but it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 50% and both params are simple. The description explains poolSize (returned size, not an input) and that description is a plain-language audience, but does not document workspace or describe syntax for sizing/filters in the input string.

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?

Specific verb and resource: turns a plain audience description into a panel spec with filters, size, and assumed shares. It names the sibling prism_panels_create as the next step, so the draft/create boundary is explicit.

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?

Gives clear context: show the spec to the person, then pass it to prism_panels_create. It does not state when NOT to use the tool or contrast it with prism_studies_draft/standalone variants, but the draft-vs-create handoff is well defined.

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