FreelanceOS

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) and not idempotent (idempotentHint: false). The description adds valuable context that storage can occur 'before or after sending,' clarifying this tracks both drafts and sent message records. However, it omits what the tool returns on success, whether duplicates are created on retry (though annotations cover idempotency), or any side effects.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first defines the action, second defines the usage context. The description is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word 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?

Given this is a creation tool with 5 well-documented parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral context (draft storage, tracking purpose, timing relative to sending). It could be improved by describing the return value or distinguishing more explicitly from followups.messages.update, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all 5 parameters including the enum values for 'type' and UUID patterns. The description implies the content and subject through 'drafted follow-up message' and client_id through 'to the client,' but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or parameter relationships beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific action ('Store a drafted follow-up message'), the resource type (drafted follow-up), and the system (FreelanceOS database). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like followups.messages.update or followups.sent.mark by emphasizing this is for initial drafting/saving, not modification or marking sent status.

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 clear context with 'Use when the freelancer has composed a follow-up and wants to save it for tracking purposes before or after sending it to the client.' This establishes the workflow timing and purpose. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (like followups.messages.update for editing existing drafts) or explicitly state 'do not use this to send messages'.

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