pine_new_buffer

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds real context beyond them: the artifact is an unsaved local draft, draft identity is verified before the source is applied, and no cloud script is produced. It still omits what happens on guard failure and what state is mutated in the browser, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Two short sentences, the positive action is front-loaded, and the exclusion clause is placed last. Dense but every clause carries information; the 'verify draft identity' phrasing is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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?

For a 5-parameter, 4-required mutation tool with no output schema and 40% schema coverage, the description covers the core action and its main exclusion but says nothing about the concurrency guards, failure behavior, or timeout. An agent could call it, but not confidently.

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 only 40%, so the description needs to carry the undocumented parameters, but it names none of them. 'Set exact supplied source' loosely maps to source, and 'verify draft identity' only hints at expected_binding_sha256/expected_layout_id. The guard semantics and timeout_ms are left entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a native unsaved Pine draft') plus a clarifying scope statement ('Does not create a cloud script'), which separates it from pine_save_new and pine_save_as. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, but the negative scope does the differentiating work.

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?

'From a clean saved document' implies a precondition but doesn't state it as a rule, and 'Does not create a cloud script' implies which sibling to use instead without naming it. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use routing, so the agent must infer.

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