Create a DraftRoom Manual draft

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

Annotations already declare the write/safe profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it stores 'untrusted draft material' and 'does not mark official work done,' clarifying state transitions. It omits auth/rate-limit or return-shape detail, keeping it below 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the prose is padded with internal jargon ('capable subscription chat seat,' 'Jobs Board conveyor belt,' 'Alarm bell') across several sentences that could be tightened. Every sentence relates to behavior, but the density of metaphor reduces clarity.

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 an 8-param, 6-required write tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose, timing, post-call state, and what gets captured. That is enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it leaves return behavior to inference.

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 coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter. The description echoes the stored fields (brief, job mirror, short description, supplied code) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb (creates) and resource (a Manual DraftRoom draft), then enumerates the artifacts stored (brief, job mirror, short description, supplied code). It never names sibling tools like promote_expressroom_draft or list_expressroom_drafts directly, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Provides real usage context ('first station when a capable subscription chat seat has fresh build context') and an explicit when-not ('Do not park fresh context for a low-capacity unattended runner unless...'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use instead, so it doesn't reach the top tier.

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