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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It honestly discloses that the tool returns specific artifacts (prepare URL, library page, drafting hints), that it does not trigger sending, and how optional notes are used. It does not detail side effects like whether a server-side draft or library record is created, but the important workflow behavior is covered.

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, composed of three sentences, delivers the core purpose, return values, a safety-relevant limitation, and a parameter behavior without any filler. Every sentence contributes to a clear mental model.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly lists the returned artifacts and mentions the human-review workflow. It makes proper mention of the source of the slug in a later schema, but doesn't describe error conditions or whether the operation requires prior authentication or consent. For this scope of description, it is largely sufficient.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by mentioning that notes are echoed as 'a drafting brief for the assistant,' but it does not substantially extend meaning for the slug parameter. The schema's example (mutual-nda) already provides the needed orientation.

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 explicitly states a specific action and resource: 'Start an agentic drafting workflow from a trusted Docracy template.' It also differentiates the tool's scope by enumerating distinct returns (prepare URL, library page, drafting hints) and by clarifying that it does NOT auto-send, which distinguishes it from an end-to-end signing tool.

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 use context: use it when you want to start a template-based drafting workflow, and not when you need to send for signature — the human sends afterwards. It implies the slug should come from referring to list_templates, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state exclusions beyond not-auto-send.

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