validate_drafts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output semantics ('publishable true only when no draft has an error') and a notable limitation about prose/markdown values being reported as coverage warnings rather than missing. This is substantive behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds timing and result semantics, and the third adds an important caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers usage timing, output summary, and a known limitation, which is helpful. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and the 'live' parameter is left undefined, so an agent still has a meaningful gap in understanding the full contract.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains that directory points to a drafts directory, but it never explains the 'live' parameter, leaving one of only two parameters semantically unexplained.

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 verb and resource: 'Check every draft in a nanopubs/drafts/ directory at once.' This clearly identifies a batch validation operation and distinguishes it from the singular sibling validate_draft.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: run before Phase 5b and again before announcing. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer validate_draft or verify_chain, but the intended context is clear.

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