draft_post_variations

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), description clarifies that the tool creates drafts but does not post, and mentions persona-aware server-side LLM. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences: first explains the main action, second clarifies behavioral constraints and requirements. No unnecessary words, and critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Output schema exists, but description does not explain the return value. Additionally, it lacks explanation for the 'account' parameter. Given moderate complexity, more context on parameter usage would improve 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain all parameters. It mentions 'count' and 'topic' but does not explain 'account', which is a required parameter. This leaves ambiguity about which account is used.

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?

Description clearly states the action: generate distinct takes on a topic using server-side LLM and stage as drafts. It specifies the verb (generate), resource (post drafts), and scope (count distinct takes). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'prepare_reply' and 'generate_and_post'.

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?

Description explains that nothing is posted and one can approve or reject drafts, and it lists the prerequisite (LLM block in settings). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative tools for similar tasks.

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