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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It discloses that the tool only drafts (does not run), mentions human review, and includes a sensitive-tier note explaining approval persistence (from-now-on vs just-once). This is valuable context. However, it does not fully explain what output the Play contains (e.g., steps, custom instructions) or any side effects beyond drafting, so it falls short of 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?

The description is succinct, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence, then clarifying what it does not do, and adding usage and sensitive-tier context in subsequent lines. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy, though the sensitive-tier note adds a separate block that could be integrated more cleanly.

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 tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide substantial context. While it explains when to use and the approval flow, it does not describe what a successful draft returns, how to structure draft_* parameters, or what 'growth_tactics with steps' entails. The missing parameter semantics and lack of output expectation leave the description incomplete for reliable 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 only 36%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. It references 'activity_name' implicitly as the oversized activity and mentions 'growth_tactics with steps' which loosely maps to draft_steps, but it provides no semantic detail for draft_title, draft_category, draft_goal_impact, draft_custom_instructions, or other parameters. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents without adequate parameter guidance.

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 clearly states the tool drafts a Play from an oversized agent activity, with a specific verb (draft), resource (Play), and source context. It explicitly distinguishes from running the play via agree_playbook, and the phrase 'from an oversized agent activity' differentiates it from siblings like create_playbook. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use when a run hit step/continuation limits because the work is multi-unit.' It also explains the next step (operator agrees via agree_playbook) and clarifies that this tool does not run the play. This is strong situational guidance that prevents misuse and guides the agent to the correct workflow.

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