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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the call runs in the background and returns a task_id that must be polled via get_task_status, and the output is only a draft saved for review in the Dactic app, never deployed from here. That safely characterizes a non-destructive but state-creating operation far better than the bare destructiveHint=false. The remaining gap is that the idempotency and retry behavior implied by idempotentHint=false and the idempotency_key parameter is never discussed.

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?

Information is front-loaded: what it does, when to use it, what to collect first, then how it executes. Every sentence carries a distinct role, though the sequence of separate constraint statements at the end could be tightened.

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 nine-parameter, background-executing creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: preconditions, task polling loop, draft-only outcome, and the platform limit (claude only; Monday agents are created in the app). Return-value detail is rightly omitted because an output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description does the heavy lifting; it supplies meaning for purpose, steps, trigger, resources, constraints, and the platform restriction on target_platform, which is most of the required semantic load. It leaves name, notes, and especially idempotency_key unexplained, so partial compensation rather than full.

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 ('Draft a new Dactic agent, and the new skills it needs') plus the input source ('from a process the user describes in this chat'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling synthesize_agent by noting that synthesize_agent only reuses existing skills, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit selection condition ('use this when the user's existing skills don't cover the work') and names the alternative it is not. It also spells out prerequisites: gather purpose, ordered steps, trigger, resources/tools, and prohibitions, then confirm the summary before calling.

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