tg_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: nothing leaves the account, the draft survives across devices, and it is not sent until the user presses send. It also explains the clear=true behavior. It does not cover error cases or permissions, but the core safety profile is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, efficiently front-loaded. The first sentence states the action, the second gives usage context, and the third clarifies a parameter. No redundant words; every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers main purpose, usage scenario, and a key parameter. Missing details on reply_to and error behavior, but the core functionality is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 only explains the 'clear' parameter ('Pass clear=true to wipe the draft'). 'chat' and 'text' are implied by context, but 'reply_to' is completely unexplained. This leaves a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 states the tool's function: 'Save a draft in a chat instead of sending it.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tg_send or tg_schedule, and explicitly mentions the resource (chat) and the action (save draft). The phrase 'instead of sending' directly contrasts with send tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'This is the right tool when a message needs the user's eyes first: nothing leaves the account, and it survives across devices.' It implies when not to use (when immediate sending is desired) but does not name specific alternatives like tg_send. Clear context, but no explicit exclusions.

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