draft_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that the tool does not send and returns a draft_id for later sending. It does not detail side effects like draft persistence, but the essential safe/non-sending behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first states the core purpose; the second delivers the critical caveat and alternative. Every word earns its place.

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 simple draft tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys purpose, the non-sending behavior, and the follow-up action. It does not describe full return structure beyond draft_id, but that is enough to invoke send_reply 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to since parameter descriptions already exist; no gaps are introduced.

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 drafts a reply to a ticket for review, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does NOT send, directing the agent to send_reply.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context ('for review') and an explicit when-not/alternative directive: 'Does NOT send — call send_reply with the returned draft_id to send.' This is a clear exclusion and names the sibling alternative.

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