Fill Creation Holes

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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable specifics: the batch is atomic, accepted batches replace the stored draft, and rejected batches leave it unchanged. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 information-dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, resource, and data source; the second conveys the key atomic replacement semantics. Everything earns its place.

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 destructive mutation with an output schema present, the description supplies the essential outcome guarantee and atomicity. The schema fully documents all four required parameters, so an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool 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 schema already documents every parameter, including holeId, optionIds, expectedRevision, and playSessionId. The description adds only general guidance about using option ids from current holes, which is helpful but not substantially beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action—submitting an atomic batch of creation fills—for a specific resource (a stored draft), and clarifies the required data source: option ids returned by its current holes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like discover_creation_holes and fill_battle_hole.

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?

It states the context clearly: filling a stored draft using options ids from its current holes, and describes acceptance/rejection outcomes. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or compare it with sibling tools, but the workflow context is strongly implied.

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