draft_brief

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 format (one-page Markdown) and that a market-appropriate disclosure label is embedded, which is useful, but says nothing about whether anything is persisted, permissions required, or how errors are surfaced.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; output format and key content are stated up front. It is efficient, though extremely sparse for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 described, but with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and a terse one-sentence description, an agent lacks enough context to fill the 7 required fields correctly.

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% across 11 parameters, and the description only hints at one of them ('market', mapping loosely to country). Brand, product, goal, audience, platform, deliverables, key_messages, dos, donts, and deadline are left entirely 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write a one-page creator brief in Markdown') plus an additional deliverable ('the right disclosure label for the market'). This distinguishes it functionally from check_disclosure, but it never names siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It is unclear whether this should be called before or instead of check_disclosure, and no prerequisites are stated despite the presence of that sibling tool.

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