draft_ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. 'Does not submit' adds a useful drafting semantic that reinforces the non-write nature, and 'expose absent fields' hints at the response shape, but neither goes far beyond the annotations.

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 clauses with the purpose front-loaded and the non-submit constraint attached. Efficient, though 'expose absent fields' is slightly cryptic and could be clearer or dropped.

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 low-complexity surface (one param, read-only) plus an existing output schema means return values need not be explained. Still, the definition leaves the draft-vs-followup-vs-validate routing and the meaning of issue_id unaddressed, so it is only minimally complete.

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% and the single parameter issue_id is never named or explained. 'From a recorded issue' only loosely implies the parameter refers to an existing issue, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema type.

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 gives a specific verb+resource combo ('Prepare a technical handoff from a recorded issue') and even hints at output ('expose absent fields'). However it never distinguishes itself from siblings like draft_followup or validate_draft, so an agent can't reliably route to it over those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. 'Does not submit' implies a drafting-vs-submitting distinction, but no submit tool exists among the siblings, so the agent is left to infer its place in the workflow.

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