legal_document_drafting

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, yet the description does not disclose the destructive or side-effect nature of this action (e.g., overwriting a file, committing changes, replacing existing content). It also does not mention that this is a generative action that may produce a draft requiring review. With destructiveHint=true, the description should explain what gets destroyed or modified, but it remains silent.

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 fairly compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter list is redundant with the schema but does add minimal clarifications. A bit of waste in 'Args:' section that mirrors schema, but overall size is appropriate.

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?

This is a complex, destructive (annotations) tool with no required parameters, an output schema, and zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain the output, whether the draft is returned or saved, how document_type values are denominated, or how the templates/house style are selected. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without more context.

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 only re-lists parameter names with minimal semantics. 'Free-text objective for the action' adds little meaning for message; 'Plain-English brief of what the document needs to cover' is helpful for brief, but document_type lacks accepted values and counterparty lacks context. The description does not compensate for the undefined schema.

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 states a specific action (draft a legal document), the resource (NDA, MSA, side letter, employment agreement, policy), and the input source (brief plus firm templates and house style). It is distinguishable from sibling document drafting tools like doc_builder or create_document, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 intended use: drafting legal documents from a brief. It does not state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., business_draft_contract, legal_nda_packet, create_document) or when not to use it. Sibling tools cover many legal document creation scenarios, so explicit guidance would improve selection.

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