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

The description supplements the annotations by explicitly stating that this action sends no signature request, shares no document, moves no funds, and does not close the investment. It also mentions required read/write consent. The annotations already indicate destructive/idempotent behavior, and the description does not contradict them.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the precondition, states the action, specifies required inputs, and lists relevant side-effect limitations in a compact amount of text.

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 provides useful workflow context and side-effect clarity, but because the schema has no parameter descriptions and the nested data object is complex, the description is not fully complete on its own. It covers the main action and required expected_version, but leaves several optional and required parameters under-explained. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed.

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%, and the description only broadly mentions passing 'unchanged preview inputs' and the 'current version' (expected_version). It does not explain the purpose of confirmation_token, idempotency_key, or the many nested data fields such as agreement_text, source_version, complete_agreement_reviewed, or allocation_index, leaving the agent to infer their meanings from the schema alone.

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 saves a company-reviewed agreement as an unsigned SAFE draft and references the preview_agreement workflow. It distinguishes this step from closing or funding actions, though the verb 'prepare' is slightly less direct than 'save' or 'create'.

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 provides clear usage context: it should be used after preview_agreement and exact-intent confirmation, and it mentions the required consent. It also clarifies what the tool does not do, which helps an agent avoid misuse, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling sparkclose tools.

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