generate_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by noting the use of the site profile voice guide, but it does not describe side effects, return behavior, or whether it creates a persistent draft. The description is informative but incomplete for a generation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence (13 words) that front-loads the primary action and includes a parenthetical clarification. There is no unnecessary information or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but there is no output schema or description of return values. The description explains the core purpose but leaves ambiguous whether the draft is returned directly or must be retrieved separately (e.g., via get_draft). This gap reduces completeness.

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% since the only parameter (brief_id) has a description. The description adds minimal semantic value by clarifying the brief is used for the draft, but it does not provide additional detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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: 'Generate a voice-matched draft article for a brief.' It uses a specific verb (generate), identifies the resource (draft article), and adds a distinguishing qualifier (voice-matched). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like generate_article or regenerate_article.

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?

The description implies the tool is used when generating a draft from a brief, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Context is present ('for a brief'), but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools or guidance on when not to use it.

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