prepare_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that input comes from 'supplied text' and targets an 'imported chat'; it never clarifies what 'prepare' does behaviorally (returns a draft object? validates text? nothing persisted?), which is the main ambiguity.

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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing detail elsewhere.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a 'prepared' message draft is and what the caller receives; it does not. Combined with 0% parameter description coverage and no stated relationship to the imported-chat workflow, the definition leaves an agent guessing at both inputs and results.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only loosely does: 'from the supplied text' maps to the text parameter and 'for an imported chat' hints at chatId. It adds no format, identifier-shape, or length guidance beyond the raw schema constraints.

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?

States a specific verb ('Prepare') and resource ('a message draft'), and scopes it to an imported chat, which separates it from siblings like prepare_purchase or import_records. It stops short of naming a sibling or defining what 'prepare' actually produces, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 on when to call this versus alternatives (e.g. prepare_purchase, get_chat, list_chats) and no prerequisites such as the chat needing to be imported first. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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