create_draft

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

With no annotations, the description is responsible for behavioral disclosure. It does add useful detail: metadata validation happens, the result is an unpublished draft rather than a published record, and the default environment is Zenodo Sandbox. However, it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or what the operation returns.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the default backend is stated as a separate, useful second sentence. Every word 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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, but with no output schema or annotations, the description leaves gaps: it does not mention the return value, how the draft is referenced later, or how it fits into the workflow with upload_file and publish_draft. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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?

The schema shows a required 'metadata' property with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description names metadata and says it is validated, but does not explain the expected structure, required fields, or format, so it fails to compensate for the empty 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The description clearly identifies the action ('create') and resource ('unpublished repository draft'), and mentions an additional validation step. This differentiates it from siblings like get_draft, update_draft, and publish_draft by verb and state, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus validate_deposition, update_draft, or publish_draft. The default-backend note gives environment context but does not explain prerequisites, sequencing, or when not to use the tool.

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