draft_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does the important part: 'Dry-run: nothing is posted anywhere' explicitly declares the operation is side-effect-free, which is the key safety fact for a tool that emits patches and issues. It also says each artifact carries graph evidence. Permissions and any limits on reruns are not covered.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: artifacts first, then the safety guarantee, then the parameter shortcut. No filler and every clause adds information.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is produced (CODEOWNERS patch per repo, issue draft per pairing, graph evidence) and confirms nothing is emitted externally. The unexplained tenant parameter is the only real gap for an agent to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains decision_id well - omitting it selects the latest approved Decision - but tenant is never mentioned and its empty-string default is unexplained, leaving one of two parameters ambiguous.

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?

States a specific transformation - an approved succession Decision becomes a CODEOWNERS patch per repo and an issue draft per pairing. The concrete output artifacts distinguish it from read-only siblings like succession_review and overview without needing the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'approved succession Decision' and the explicit 'omit decision_id to use the latest approved one' rule, but there is no statement of when to call this versus succession_review or what prerequisites (approval state, credentials) must hold. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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