preview_document_draft

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that nothing is issued or emailed and that output is a local PDF the agent should surface to the user. It does not mention permission requirements, file location, or behavior when the draft is unsaved, which keeps it from 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the negative scope, then the agent instruction. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter read-style tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the non-issue boundary, and what the agent should do with the result. It is only slightly incomplete in not clarifying the id parameter's meaning or the unsaved-draft case.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description carries the full burden and only hints at it via 'the current saved Morning draft'. It never states that the id is the draft identifier or what happens if it is invalid, so the parameter remains semantically thin.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Generate a local PDF from the current saved Morning draft') and draws a clear boundary with the issuing/emailing path, which separates it from prepare_issue_document_draft and execute_draft. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent still has to infer which tool handles the issue step.

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?

'Does not issue or email it' functions as an explicit when-not, and 'Show this preview to the user' tells the agent what to do with the result. The phrase 'current saved' draft implies the draft must be saved first, but no alternative tool is named for the issue path, leaving the routing partly implicit.

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