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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention that all 9 parameters are also discarded, nor what the template actually contains or any output format. The disclosure is partial.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it may sacrifice clarity, but for a simple tool it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what happens to the parameters, whether they are ignored, or what the returned template looks like. An agent could easily misunderstand that the parameters matter. The description fails to cover essential context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides; it does not even mention the parameters. It neither enhances nor degrades the schema's clarity.

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 returns a three-step thinking template, giving a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is slightly ambiguous but does not obscure the core purpose. It is distinct enough from sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools. The implication is that it is for thinking templates, but that is not explicit.

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