Generate a deliverable template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the output is a Markdown skeleton with section structure and filling guide, and that data is pre-filled from the current engagement by default. It does not state whether the tool persists anything, only returns text, or what happens when deliverable is omitted.

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 bilingual description is compact: each language version is a single sentence that states the resource, the main behavior, and the default pre-fill. No filler or repetition beyond the intentional bilingual duplication.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the resource and default behavior but leaves gaps: no usage route versus siblings, no explicit statement about side effects or persistence, and no description of the listing behavior when deliverable is omitted. It is adequate but not complete enough for an agent to make a fully informed choice.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by enumerating exactly which engagement data gets injected (stakeholders, risks, work packages, transition states), which clarifies useEngagement and engagementName beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb ('Generate') and resource ('Markdown skeleton for a deliverable') and specifies the default pre-fill behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings like export_deliverable or generate_review_checklist, so it falls short of a 5.

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 is given about when this tool is preferred over alternatives such as export_deliverable or draft_capability_map, nor are exclusions or prerequisites stated. The only contextual hint is the default pre-fill behavior and the useEngagement=false escape hatch, which is parameter behavior, not usage guidance.

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