business_draft_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Draft', which implies generation without clarifying side effects. It does not explain how preview_only=true affects execution, whether the draft is persisted, what permissions are required, or what happens on invocation. The schema shows a default preview_only=true, but the description does not elaborate on the behavioral consequences.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words, so it is not verbose. However, it is severely under-specified rather than elegantly concise: it omits essential context about parameters, behavior, and usage that a useful definition would include. The minimalism harms usability rather than improving it.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and complete absence of schema descriptions, this description is far too sparse to support correct invocation. It does not explain the relationship between document_type, brief, context, playbook, and the other fields, nor does it clarify what a 'business primitive' entails. Even though an output schema exists, the input side is critically underdocumented.

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 does not explain any of the 8 parameters. It never mentions document_type, brief, counterparty, jurisdiction, preview_only, or any other field, so the agent gets zero semantic guidance beyond parameter names and defaults. This is a clear failure to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Draft' and the resource 'contract or legal document packet', so an agent can tell this tool creates legal documents. However, 'as a business primitive' is undefined jargon, and the description does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings such as legal_document_drafting or business_review_contract. It is clear at a basic level but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like business_review_contract and the various legal_*_packet tools exist, but the description does not explain the specific scenarios that should route to this tool. The agent is left to infer when drafting versus reviewing or when using a business primitive is appropriate.

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