legal_document_drafting

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions drafting from templates but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing documents, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects of invocation.

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?

Description is relatively concise: one sentence defining action plus list of parameters. No unnecessary words, but the parameter list could be more structured (e.g., table format) and fails to include parameter types or constraints.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are partially covered. However, description omits important context like how templates are selected, whether the result is a document preview or final file, and how to retrieve the output. For a drafting tool, more detail on workflow and expected result is needed.

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?

Description adds basic meaning to three parameters (document_type='label', brief='Plain-English brief', counterparty='name') but contradicts schema by marking document_type and brief as required while schema shows they are optional (nullable with default null). Message parameter is vaguely described as 'free-text objective'. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but with inconsistency.

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 clearly states action (draft) and resource (legal document) with examples (NDA, MSA, etc.). It differentiates from sibling tools like legal_contract_review and legal_nda_packet by focusing on generic drafting, but does not explicitly contrast.

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?

Implies use when a brief and templates are available, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use criteria or alternatives among many sibling legal tools. No exclusions or contextual guidance provided.

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