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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description says only 'drafts', which reads as a low-impact staging action and gives no hint that the RFI is created for real, may notify outside parties, or that repeat calls create duplicates. Nothing is said about what state the RFI lands in or what is returned. This understates the annotated behavior rather than clarifying it.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity is bought at the cost of behavioral detail.

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?

A six-parameter mutation with no output schema and an open-world, destructive annotation profile needs more than one sentence: required vs optional fields, whether the reply-by date is mandatory, what identifier comes back, and whether recipients are notified are all absent.

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 coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents project_id, question, plan_sheet, reference_area and the YYYY-MM-DD format for response_needed_by. The description only echoes 'question' and 'reply-by date' and adds no format, default, or constraint information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 — drafting a request for information on a project — and names the two key content fields, which cleanly separates it from get_rfi and list_rfis. It stops short of any scope or sibling differentiation beyond that, so it is clear but not maximally sharp.

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?

There is no guidance on when to create an RFI versus a submittal, punchlist, or note, and no mention that this is the write counterpart to get_rfi/list_rfis. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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