draft_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses a precondition (validation passing) but does not describe whether the tool modifies any state, what input format is expected, or what the output draft looks like. This is insufficient for a drafting action.

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 with no fluff. It effectively front-loads the purpose and condition. However, the brevity may be at the expense of necessary detail.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what happens after validation, what the draft contains, and any limitations. It only provides a gate condition, leaving the tool's overall behavior underspecified relative to its siblings.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention 'case_json' at all beyond referring to 'el caso'. It does not explain the expected structure, required fields, or how the case data is used in drafting.

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 drafts an ARCO request (Redacta una solicitud ARCO), providing a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_case or assess_case by focusing on drafting, and adds a condition that narrows its applicability.

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 phrase 'solo si el caso supera la validacion critica' explicitly tells the agent when this tool should be used, implying a validation step must precede it. While it doesn't name the exact sibling tool to call first, it provides a clear gate condition.

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