create_draft_aop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the write/replace semantics are covered. The description adds nothing beyond 'draft' and 'write-path workflows' - it does not say what gets created or overwritten, whether draft_id must be unique, or any permission/validation requirement.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy, which is structurally clean, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tightness. The 'write-path workflows' clause consumes space without earning 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 9-parameter creation tool with 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves critical gaps: what an 'AOP' draft requires, what adverse_outcome and applicability mean, and how this fits other draft-authoring siblings.

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?

There are 9 parameters with 0% schema description coverage (6 of them required), so the schema provides no meaning and the description must compensate. It mentions none of them - not draft_id, title, adverse_outcome, applicability, references, or tags - leaving an agent to guess at required content and formats.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: create a new draft AOP. This distinguishes it from read siblings like get_aop and search_aops. However, the trailing phrase 'for write-path workflows' is vague jargon that adds little and does not differentiate it from other write siblings such as add_or_update_ke or save_draft_review_artifact.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives is given. 'Write-path workflows' is not a usable condition for selection, and no prerequisites, sequencing, or alternatives are named despite many sibling tools that touch drafts.

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