ofw_status

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the top-level `complete` flag is true ONLY when everything was verified live, with an explicit instruction not to state draft counts or lifecycle claims when false. It also discloses the create-then-delete id churn and that a draftKey keeps resolving after the draft is sent. It does not surface the irreversible/co-parent-visible mark-read side effect in prose (that lives only in the schema), which is the one gap.

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 core claim is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining sentences each carry distinct information (state enum, complete flag, draftKey identity). It is dense and runs long, with a couple of colloquial asides ('what happened to the thing I was working on?') that could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates the `state` enum, `sentAt`/`viewedAt`, `sentMessageId`, and the `complete` verification flag. Combined with a 100%-documented 4-param schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what a draftKey actually is — a stable identity that resolves to the chain's current id and survives sends — and how ids/draftKeys combine. It stays silent on allowMarkRead, so it does not fully pre-empt the schema's most consequential parameter.

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+resource: a single live call that resolves current draft/message lifecycle state ('where does everything stand?'), returning a full draft inventory verified against OurFamilyWizard. It explicitly carves itself out from session memory and cached reads, so an agent can distinguish it from list/check siblings.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('should back any status summary about drafts or specific messages') and when-not ('never session memory, and never a cached read alone'). It also explains the two calling modes — bare call for full inventory vs. passing ids/draftKeys for targeted probes.

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