network_draft_intro_request

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

Discloses one behavioral trait: French drafts include a mandatory opt-out line. However, without annotations, the description should reveal more (e.g., whether it modifies data, requires permissions, or is read-only). The sole behavioral detail is useful but insufficient for full transparency.

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, zero redundancy. First sentence states purpose immediately; second adds an important language-specific detail. 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?

Tool has a nested object (path) with 4 required fields and an output schema, yet the description omits structure of the scaffold, typical usage, or output format. The French opt-out note is helpful but does not compensate for missing guidance on constructing the path. Adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the 'lang' parameter by noting the opt-out line for French, but does not elaborate on 'path' or 'context' beyond schema descriptions. Meets adequacy without exceeding.

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?

Explicitly states 'Draft an introduction request scaffold' using a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like network_find_warm_path (finding paths) and network_score_intro_value (scoring value), making its unique purpose clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions where other tools would be preferred.

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