tg_draft

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

Annotations establish that the operation is not read-only but also not destructive and is idempotent. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it does not actually send, the user is the one who sends, nothing leaves the account, and drafts persist across devices. It does not discuss overwriting an existing draft, but the idempotency hint reduces that concern.

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 compact and front-loaded. The core behavior is in the first sentence, followed by succinct usage guidance and the key parameter behavior. 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?

For a simple four-parameter tool, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it: target chat is clear, draft content is implied, clear semantics are explicit, and usage context is strong. The main gap is the reply_to parameter, which is not described at all.

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 explicitly explains clear ('Pass clear=true to wipe the draft') and implies chat through 'Save a draft in a chat,' but text and reply_to receive no direct semantic explanation, and reply_to is left entirely to inference.

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: 'Save a draft in a chat instead of sending it.' It clearly differentiates from sending-related siblings by explaining that the user sees the draft and presses send themselves.

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?

Explicitly states when this tool is the right choice: 'This is the right tool when a message needs the user's eyes first.' It further clarifies the use case with behavior differentiators like 'nothing leaves the account' and 'survives across devices,' and instructs to pass clear=true to wipe the draft.

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