prepare_issue_document_draft

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: 'Nothing issued yet' clarifies the side-effect boundary, it discloses the returned request id/payloadHash, and it states that changes in Morning invalidate the prior preparation. This is valuable, especially with no output schema. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false 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?

Four short sentences, with the core action and the safety caveat ('Nothing issued yet') front-loaded and the freshness rule last. Each sentence carries distinct information with little waste.

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 return payload is explained well enough to bridge the missing output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 0% parameter documentation and no clarification of how id/title/requestKey are obtained, the definition is not complete for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 three required parameters (id, title, requestKey), yet the description never explains what any of them mean or where they come from. It references recipients and PDF, but those are not the actual parameters, leaving the agent to infer the UUID/payloadHash wiring from the schema alone.

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+resource: preparing issuance of the current saved Morning draft, including recipients and PDF. An agent can tell this is the pre-issue preparation step, not the actual issuance, and the mention of 'Morning draft' differentiates it from generic document tools. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives like preview_document_draft or prepare_document.

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?

Clearly routes the agent: use this before execute_draft, only after the user confirms in chat, and re-run it if the Morning draft changes. That gives a concrete workflow position and a freshness condition. It lacks explicit when-NOT-to-use guidance relative to the other prepare/preview siblings.

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