Create Strategy Draft

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

Annotations are all false and carry little positive information, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add useful context: drafts are private, each call produces a new draft ID, and strategy_spec must satisfy a named contract. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or failure behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: core purpose, schema contract, and non-idempotency. There is no filler, repetition, or restatement of the tool name.

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. The required strategy_spec parameter is constrained via the contract URI, and the tool's creation behavior is clear. However, scaffold_profile is left unexplained, and no pointer to update/validate siblings is provided. This is adequate for basic calls but incomplete for full parameter understanding.

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 must compensate. It meaningfully constrains strategy_spec by pointing to the strategy-spec-v1 contract URI, but it never explains scaffold_profile, its values, or its effect on the created draft. One of the two parameters is therefore entirely undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a private single-test or Python-bundle draft.' It also adds that each call creates a new draft ID, which helps distinguish this creation tool from siblings like update_strategy_draft and get_strategy_draft.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus update_strategy_draft, validate_strategy_draft, or prepare_strategy_changes. The non-idempotent creation behavior is implied, but no alternatives or prerequisites are stated, so the agent must infer usage on its own.

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