gp_revise_draft

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

No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behaviors. It only says 'revises' without explaining if the draft is mutated or a new version created, nor any permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Significant gaps.

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?

Single sentence is concise and efficient, with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from structure (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability and scanning.

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 nested objects and no output schema. Description does not explain what the revised result looks like, how it relates to the pipeline (generate → critique → revise), or any workflow expectations. Incomplete.

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 3. Description adds brief context: 'original Draft email' and 'Critique feedback to apply', which is helpful but does not deeply explain parameter semantics beyond field names.

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?

Description states verb 'revises' and resource 'cold email draft', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools gp_generate_email_draft and gp_critique_draft. Purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage after critique input, but does not explicitly state when to use or when to avoid. No alternatives or context provided, making it merely implied.

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