draft_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates a draft, resolves the recipient via /detail, and returns the most recent message for approval context. This is more informative than a generic 'create draft' statement, but it still omits side effects, permission requirements, and any failure or response details.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action ('Crea borrador'), and each sentence adds information about recipient resolution or return behavior. It is appropriately concise, though the references to '/detail' and 'contexto de aprobación' are somewhat cryptic and could have been clarified without much extra length.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, this description is too sparse for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It provides the core action and some interesting return behavior, but lacks parameter semantics, side-effect clarity, and enough detail about how the recipient resolution works.

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. It only indirectly suggests that conversation_id is used to resolve the recipient from /detail and that text is the draft content. Neither parameter is explicitly defined, and no format or expected values are given, leaving the agent to infer essential calling semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Crea borrador' (create draft), which clearly identifies the action. It adds behavioral details about resolving the recipient from /detail and returning the latest message for approval context, giving a usable sense of what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from send_message, but the draft-vs-send distinction is reasonably clear.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_message. The phrase 'para contexto de aprobación' hints at an approval-related use case, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or when the agent should prefer a sibling tool.

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