draft_waves

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool does not execute the waves and specifies the wave order. However, it does not disclose whether the proposal persists, requires permissions, or has any side effects.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core distinction ('without executing them') is stated directly.

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 tool is simple with only two required scalar parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need much. It covers the main purpose and non-execution, but it omits what the proposal produces or returns and how the parameters relate to the waves.

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 provides only names and types with no descriptions, and the description never mentions the parameters. 'seed_url' and 'engagement_id' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the 0% schema coverage is not compensated by any parameter-level guidance in the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('propose'), identifies the resource ('waves'), and names the exact wave sequence ('probe_alive then template_scan'). The phrase 'without executing them' clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling execute_wave.

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 description implies use when you want to preview or plan waves before execution, and 'without executing them' effectively rules out execute_wave. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to switch to execution, but the intended context is reasonably clear.

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