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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it only drafts, requires operator agreement before running, may need manager approval on first use, and instructs the agent not to re-ask in chat once the card is the yes. This is substantial value beyond the structured 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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first sentence, the workflow constraint in the second, and the sensitive/approval guidance in a labeled bracket. Every sentence adds distinct value and none are redundant with the title or schema.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, workflow, approval sensitivity, and the fact that the tool does not execute the play. It does not describe the return shape, but that is a minor gap given the create-draft semantics and the strong schema coverage.

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 82%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and it does not clarify the two undocumented parameters (reason, linked_kr_id). Since the schema already covers most parameters well, no additional compensation is required.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Draft a Play (growth_tactics with steps + human review) from an oversized agent activity.' It clarifies that this tool creates a draft, not a run, and gives the trigger condition. It is clearly distinguished from run_playbook and agree_playbook by stating 'Does not run the play.'

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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use: 'Use when a run hit step/continuation limits because the work is multi-unit.' It also explains the next step in the workflow (operator agrees via agree_playbook). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name sibling alternatives like create_playbook, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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