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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it writes drafts only, never sends or pays, and no MCP tool can send. It also explains the 'blocked' outcome and what causes it, which is valuable runtime behavior not visible in the schema or annotations. No contradiction exists between the description and 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 long but densely informative, front-loaded with the core behavior and then covering limitations, fallbacks, and error handling. A few phrases are somewhat redundant with the title and annotations, such as repeating 'never sends' and adding 'no MCP tool can,' which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete: it explains supported task types, unsupported task types and how to handle them, the fallback path for form-filling tasks, the blocked outcome and its remedy. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return-format detail is not a gap.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for complete schema coverage. The main behavioral context (draft-only, email/call distinction) is relevant but not tied to individual parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: it 'prepares one task' by writing an email or call script and handing it back. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it never sends, dials, submits, or pays, and explicitly says which task types it can and cannot handle.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it covers email, call, and fallback form-filling tasks, but cannot start walk or research tasks, which 'are done in the PutRoots web app; say so rather than retrying.' It also provides a recovery alternative for blocked tasks: 'use move_task_answer, then call this again.'

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