draft_notice

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: deterministic computation of statutory fields, production of a draft (not a final filing), inclusion of filing instructions, and need for human review. It does not cover potential errors or rate limits, but the core safety profile is clear.

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 three focused sentences, each valuable: purpose, nature of output, and prerequisites. No filler or redundancy.

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 moderately complex tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output nature, and required prior steps. It lacks details on error handling or return structure, but the core completeness is good.

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 description provides high-level context that statutory fields are computed deterministically, but does not detail individual parameters beyond naming required ones. The schema provides descriptions for 67% of parameters, so the description adds marginal value beyond that.

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 takedown notice from evidence, with specific verb 'draft' and resource 'takedown notice'. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing required prior tools (capture_evidence, get_playbook).

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 specifies prerequisites ('Use capture_evidence first', 'get_playbook to pick the right reportPathId') and clarifies the output is a draft requiring human review. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context implies it's only for drafting, not filing.

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