draft_create_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new draft schedule' without explaining side effects, required permissions, whether the draft is persisted, or what the return value is. This is a significant gap for a create operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and immediately communicates the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the created draft schedule looks like or whether it returns an ID. Additionally, the draft parameter is an open object (additionalProperties: {}), and the description does not clarify required schedule fields or how this integrates with draft lifecycle tools. Overall, the description is too sparse to be 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 100% for both parameters (campaign_draft_id and draft), each with a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The draft object description is vague ('Object containing schedule fields'), but the schema already provides some context.

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 'Create a new draft schedule' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (draft schedule), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_schedule and vast_create_schedule through the 'draft' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_schedule or draft_update_schedule. It does not state that this is for draft workflows or that the draft must be saved before becoming live, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool.

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