prepare_document

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

Annotations only declare the generic write/not-destructive/openWorld=false profile; the description adds real behavioral context: it is a legacy shortcut, it deliberately skips the Morning draft store, it issues/emails nothing, and its request expires in 24 hours. It does not describe what local state is actually created or whether calls are idempotent, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Six short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the 'Legacy shortcut' qualifier and the preferred alternative. Nothing repeats the annotations or schema, and each clause carries a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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 10-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers routing, side effects, and request expiry well. The remaining gap is parameter guidance, but the schema does carry the structural constraints (patterns, enums, min/max), and the return-value burden is low since this only builds a local request.

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% across 10 parameters (6 required), and the description supplies no field-level meaning at all — nothing about requestKey, clientId, the 10/300/305 type values, language, or item fields. Only 'PDF' and 'ILS issuance request' hint at what the payload represents; the agent must infer everything else from the raw schema constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('prepare a local ILS issuance request and PDF') and immediately frames its scope ('without saving a draft in Morning'). Explicitly names the siblings that should be preferred instead, so an agent can distinguish it from save_document_draft and prepare_issue_document_draft without reading any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'Prefer save_document_draft then prepare_issue_document_draft,' plus the downstream step ('Review it before execute_draft'). It also clarifies what this tool does NOT do (no issuance, no email), which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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