draft_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden, and it does surface the key behavioral trait: the tool is non-mutating and produces text only. That said, it says nothing about determinism, permissions, or whether the draft persists anywhere else, so it is only partially 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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the behavioral caveat follows. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-described, and the single-parameter surface is simple. Still, the meaning of the one input is left undocumented, which is a real gap for even a lightweight tool.

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 single 'text' parameter (default empty string) is never explained. The agent is left to infer whether 'text' is an instruction, a seed draft, or a template.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Draft a status update') and adds what the output is ('Produces text'). It is clearly distinct from the read-heavy siblings and from propose_issue_note, but it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling.

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 clause 'writes nothing to a system of record' implies this is the safe choice when you only want generated text rather than a persisted write, which is useful implied usage. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given.

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