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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the study is created in DRAFT state, respondents never see the idea, generation consumes inference credit, and the call may return `needs_confirmation`. The cost and confirmation disclosures are genuinely useful. It does not explain what `needs_confirmation` requires from the caller, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the generation action and its output shape, then workflow and cost. Every sentence carries information. Slightly dense with the parenthetical insert, but no filler.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and 25% parameter coverage, the description covers state (draft), cost, and the confirmation return path but leaves the remaining parameter semantics unexplained. Adequate minimum viable coverage, with a clear gap on fieldId/approvalId.

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 only 25% — only `workspace` is documented, while nodeId, fieldId, and approvalId carry no schema description. The description alludes to the node context and hints at an approval flow via `needs_confirmation`, but never explains what fieldId identifies or how approvalId relates to the confirmation return, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 and resource: generates a short study (5-8 questions probing the node's problem space) and creates it as a DRAFT. The phrase 'probing the node's problem space' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling draft tools (draft_standalone, draft_from_interviews), but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the routing.

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 workflow context — user reviews, previews, and opens for responses from the study page or via prism_studies_update publish — but gives no explicit condition for choosing this over prism_studies_draft_standalone or prism_studies_draft_from_interviews. Usage is implied by the nodeId-driven framing rather than stated.

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