Create immutable draft export plan

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

Annotations only signal readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description bears the burden of explaining side effects. It adds the useful negative constraint that the tool does not render or upload, but it does not mention the plan's immutability, persistence, or consequences of repeated calls. 'Immutable draft' appears in the title, not in the description itself.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded. 'Materializes' is mildly jargon-heavy, but the overall description is tight and readable.

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 schema is extremely complex, yet the description provides only one line of behavioral information. It does not explain the draft-plan workflow, which required fields are essential, or how this tool relates to the preview/confirm/execute sibling tools. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described, but selection and workflow context are still missing.

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%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It names high-level concepts like selection, ordering, variables, names and paths, but never maps them to actual parameters or explains the required snapshot_id and destination fields. This is insufficient for a 13-parameter tool with nested objects and enums.

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 verb 'Materializes' plus the title 'Create immutable draft export plan' make it clear the tool creates a persisted draft plan from export configuration. The clause 'Never renders or uploads' distinguishes it from later pipeline stages, though it does not explicitly separate it from preview/confirm siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. The only guidance is the negative restriction 'Never renders or uploads,' which implies this is not for the execute/upload stage but leaves the agent to infer how it relates to preview_export_plan and confirm_export_plan.

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