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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds valuable behavior: validation failure leaves the draft unsent, and confirmation is required before sending. This goes beyond the annotation's simple destructive hint.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, then gives concise but essential preconditions and failure behavior. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary filler.

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 description covers the key context for a destructive action: prerequisites, confirmation requirement, and failure behavior. It does not describe the success return value, but the absence of an output schema makes this less critical.

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 for the single parameter draftId is 100%, with the schema already describing it as the unique identifier of the draft. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Convert a draft into a live document and send invitations') with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_draft, update_draft, and send_reminder.

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 preconditions: call get_draft first, verify signees and coordinates, show a summary, and ask for confirmation. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the context for when to use the tool is clear.

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