Create assessment draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds two pieces of context the annotations do not carry: that no pipeline is triggered (draft-only side effect) and that assessments:write is required for authorization. It doesn't explain what a draft can subsequently be used for or why a create would be flagged destructive.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the differentiating scope constraint ("without starting the pipeline") front-loaded ahead of the permission note.

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?

For a three-required-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential safety/scope signal and the permission needed, but says nothing about what the created draft returns (e.g. a draft or assessment id) or how the draft moves forward into a run, leaving the lifecycle incomplete.

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 67%, and the description adds nothing about any of the three parameters (name, projectPid, artifactPids). The undocumented projectPid receives no explanation in either place, so the definition does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Create an assessment draft") and adds the key scope qualifier "without starting the pipeline," which implicitly separates it from air_start_assessment and air_run_assessment_from_file. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent still has to reason about which to pick.

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?

"Without starting the pipeline" hints at when to choose this over a full run, and the permission requirement is stated, but there is no explicit guidance on when a draft is preferable to starting or running an assessment, nor any prerequisites or follow-up steps.

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