get_procedure_draft_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what a 'draft' contains, whether unpublished edits are visible, or any auth/scope context. With annotations doing all the work, the description is empty of added value.

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 four-word phrase is technically free of waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no structure or front-loading of useful information because there is no information to front-load.

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 tool requiring three IDs and returning a 'procedure draft' with no output schema, the description provides no context about what a draft is, how it relates to a published procedure, or what the returned data represents. The annotations cover safety but the description leaves a meaningful conceptual gap.

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%, and each of the three required parameters (agent_id, branch_id, procedure_id) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'get_procedure_draft_route' with no added specificity. It names a verb and resource, but does nothing to distinguish this from the numerous siblings such as get_procedure_route, update_procedure_draft_route, or delete_procedure_draft_route. This is tautological rather than clarifying.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (agent/branch/procedure scoping), and no routing to alternatives like get_procedure_route for published procedures. The agent is left to infer everything from the name and schema.

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