jiji_prepare_message

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

Annotations already declare this is non-destructive and open-world, so the lower bar applies; the description still adds real value by disclosing that nothing is sent, that review happens on a companion approval page, and that media uploads stay in the owner's browser. It leaves one behavioral gap: with idempotentHint=false, it never says whether repeat calls create duplicate drafts.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the safety constraint. Every sentence earns its place, including the media-upload note, which prevents a plausible agent error.

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 no explanation, and the description closes the biggest risk for an open-world preparation tool by ruling out any send path. The remaining hole is the undocumented guid parameter, which an agent must guess at before it can even call the tool.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and largely does not. It gestures at 'exact text' and 'any offer amount' but never explains the required guid (presumably the listing or seller identifier) or its format, leaving the single required parameter unexplained in both structured and unstructured data.

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 and resource: prepare an exact seller message or a native price offer. An agent can tell this apart from jiji_search or jiji_read_conversation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely-named siblings jiji_prepare_action and jiji_prepare_advert, which is the one place a routing ambiguity remains.

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?

Makes the workflow position explicit: this prepares content for owner review and nothing else, and there is no agent-callable send or approve tool, which pre-empts the agent hunting for a follow-up call. It stops short of naming when to choose jiji_prepare_action or jiji_prepare_advert instead.

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