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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds that the draft is unsent and that the amount is calculated from reviewed lines, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain idempotency behavior, required permissions, or what happens when duplicate requests occur, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently states the action, draft status, amount calculation, and source lines. It is concise rather than bloated, though it could have used a second sentence to cover key parameter or usage details.

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 tool has six parameters, four required, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should explain more about jobId versus quoteId, idempotencyKey, and item structure. It mentions that amount is calculated from reviewed lines but does not explain how or what constraints apply. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input-side context remains materially incomplete.

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 must compensate but only vaguely references 'supplied reviewed lines' for the items parameter. It adds no meaning for idempotencyKey, jobId, quoteId, description, or notes, nor does it explain the item fields or enums. For six parameters with no schema descriptions, this leaves most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: creates an unsent variation draft. It also clarifies that the amount is calculated from supplied reviewed lines, which distinguishes it from generic draft creation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_quote_draft or prepare_variation_send, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_quote_draft, prepare_variation_send, or send_variation. The phrase 'unsent variation draft' implies a pre-send stage, but this is left to inference. There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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