mark_draft_ready

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses a state change and a specific validation failure. It does not explain successful side effects, idempotency, version handling, or whether failure leaves the draft unchanged.

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 two short sentences are front-loaded and contain no filler. The second sentence adds a substantive failure condition rather than merely restating the operation, although the resulting omissions are assessed in other dimensions.

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?

The core action and one important gate are present, but that is insufficient for an unannotated mutation with undocumented parameters and no output schema. Reliable invocation still requires the meaning of readiness, parameter semantics, successful effects, and clarification of its relationship to approve_draft.

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 0%, and the description explains none of seed_id, channel, or version. In particular, the purpose of optional version and why channel is required for this operation remain unclear; the channel enum supplies allowed values but no semantics.

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 identifies a specific state transition—marking a draft ready—and adds a fact-check validation condition. However, it does not define what "ready" enables or distinguish this action from the similarly named sibling approve_draft.

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 failure condition implies that the tool should be used only after fact-check flags have been cleared. It does not explicitly explain the surrounding workflow, whether fact_check_draft must run first, or when to choose this over approve_draft or other lifecycle tools.

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