create_agent_draft_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context such as required permissions, what a draft represents, side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds nothing beyond 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 extremely short and front-loaded, but the single phrase does not earn its place by adding information. This is under-specification rather than useful conciseness, similar to the low-calibration example that scored 2 on this dimension.

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?

For a complex create operation with 6 required parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It omits any explanation of what a draft route is, what the nested configs represent, or what the agent should expect after calling the tool.

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?

The input schema has 7 parameters with 71% description coverage, including some nested object descriptions. The description adds no parameter meaning, syntax guidance, or clarifications for required fields like workflow, platform_settings, or conversation_config. With moderate schema coverage and no descriptive compensation, this is a clear gap.

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?

"Create Agent Draft" restates the tool name/title without adding specificity, scope, or differentiation from siblings such as create_agent_route, create_branch_route, or delete_agent_draft_route. It does communicate a verb and a resource, but only at the level of a tautology, which fits the rubric's score of 2.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not explain how this differs from creating an actual agent via create_agent_route or why one would create a draft instead. There is no explicit or implied usage context beyond the literal name.

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