forge_draft

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

The description explains return values when url is provided and notes that code is legacy. Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds context about stashing vs verification. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main action, each sentence adds essential information. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description covers return values for url case and explains both modes. Could elaborate on what 'stashes' means or error handling, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has 100% coverage, but the description adds value beyond schema: it explains preference order (plan > code), behavior of url (triggers verification), and that path is ignored when plan or code is provided. This enriches understanding.

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 loads a tap into memory and optionally verifies it live. It distinguishes between preferred plan and legacy code, and explains behavior with and without url, making it distinct from siblings like forge_inspect or forge_save.

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 provides clear context on when to use plan vs code and when to provide url for verification. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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