generate_draft

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

The description discloses that the tool generates and records a draft, implying mutation, and notes mock offline capability. However, without annotations, it should also explain safety (e.g., overwriting behavior), prerequisites, or side effects. The current description leaves behavioral assumptions ambiguous.

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 description is extremely concise, with a single sentence that covers the action and a key behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it may be too terse, missing details that could fit in a slightly longer description.

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?

The description lacks completeness regarding prerequisites (e.g., run_id from build_context), side effects, and the meaning of 'record'. With no output schema, the agent doesn't know what the tool returns. The description should at least explain the output or success criteria.

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?

The schema covers path and run_id with descriptions. The description adds the note that mock works offline, providing context for the provider parameter. However, it does not elaborate on path or run_id beyond the schema, and the provider parameter still lacks a schema description. Overall, it adds marginal value.

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 clearly states the tool generates and records a draft with a configured provider, providing the action and resource. It also mentions offline mock capability, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like submit_draft, though the names imply different stages.

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 no explicit usage guidance. It does not specify when to use this tool over siblings like build_context or submit_draft. The mention of mock working offline hints at a scenario but lacks clear directives on prerequisites or exclusions.

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