run_writer_agent

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the state transition and API key requirement, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or whether it creates/updates existing data. The term 'Draft' implies writing but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 concise and front-loaded, containing only essential information in two short clauses. Every part earns its place with no redundant text.

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 the tool has two parameters, an output schema (not described), and many siblings, the description is adequate but lacks details on prerequisites (beyond API key), workflow integration, and what the output represents. It covers the core action but omits operational context.

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 0% description coverage, and the description adds no details about the parameters (chapter_num, chapter_brief). Agents must rely solely on parameter names, which are somewhat self-explanatory but lack the context that a good description could provide.

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 chapter using Claude, with a specific verb 'Draft' and resource 'chapter'. The state transition 'DRAW → AWAITING_EDITOR' adds further specificity, distinguishing it from generic drafting tools.

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 mentions the requirement for ANTHROPIC_API_KEY, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like run_editor_review or run_third_agent. Usage is implied (when you want to draft a chapter) but not contrasted with alternatives.

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