validate_draft

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral caveat that annotations cannot convey: passing the lint does not certify factual or semantic correctness. That manages agent expectations about the check's limits, which is exactly the added value this dimension rewards.

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 with no filler, and the core action leads. The terseness borders on cryptic — 'narrow promise patterns' is never unpacked — so it pays a small clarity cost for its brevity.

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 explained. For a single-parameter lint tool that is mostly sufficient, but the description omits the calling context (when in a workflow to validate, what a flag means in practice) that an agent would want.

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% for the single 'text' parameter, so the description must carry the load. It implies the input is draft text to be linted, which is inferable, but it gives no format, length, or content requirements. Minimal compensation for a low-documentation 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 gives a specific verb ('Lint') and target ('narrow promise patterns'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, 'narrow promise patterns' is undefined jargon, and the description never says it operates on the draft's text or how it relates to draft_ticket/draft_followup. An agent gets a rough sense of the function but not a crisp one.

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 statement of when to call this versus the sibling drafting tools, nor any prerequisites. The second sentence only clarifies how to interpret a clean result, which is a scope caveat rather than usage routing. Guidance is essentially absent.

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