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

Annotations establish it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, and the description adds genuinely non-structured context: the output is a DRAFT not a live study, generation consumes inference credit (a cost side effect), and it may return `needs_confirmation`. These are useful behavioral disclosures beyond 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 core action and output type are front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct information (what it generates, the review flow, the cost, the confirmation case). Slightly dense but no wasted sentences.

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?

With no output schema and a simple 4-parameter mutation, the description covers the creation flow, cost, and confirmation behavior adequately. The main gap is that required params (nodeId, fieldId) and approvalId are left entirely to 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 only 25% — only `workspace` is documented. The description adds no meaning for `nodeId`, `fieldId`, or `approvalId`; notably, the mention of `needs_confirmation` is not linked to the `approvalId` parameter, which would have been the obvious place to compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generates a short study... and creates it as a DRAFT') plus scope detail ('5-8 questions probing the node's problem space'). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools prism_studies_draft_from_interviews and prism_studies_draft_standalone.

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 describes the downstream workflow ('user reviews, previews, and opens it... or via prism_studies_update publish'), which routes the agent to a follow-up step. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the other two draft variants, leaving that selection to inference from the name/title.

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