Prepare customer report draft

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

Annotations already declare the operation as non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds important context: it stages a draft that is never submitted and warns against including secrets. It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or response behavior, but for a staging tool the added value is strong.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a security warning and behavioral note. It is efficient, though the phrase 'private writing help' could be tightened for 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 a simple two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the annotations cover safety and the description adds a privacy constraint and non-submission behavior. However, it completely omits parameter semantics, leaving an agent unsure how to populate 'category' and 'report_text' 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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. It never mentions the 'category' enum or what 'report_text' should contain, leaving the agent to infer their meaning entirely from the schema. This is a significant gap given the low coverage.

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 action ('Stage private writing help') and resource ('ReceiptCal issue report'), and clarifies it 'creates a draft and never submits it,' which distinguishes it from the sibling prepare_create_customer_report tool that presumably submits. The term 'private writing help' is slightly opaque but the surrounding context makes the purpose clear.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool is for staging a draft, not submitting, and should exclude sensitive data. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives like prepare_create_customer_report or prepare_retry_customer_report, nor any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the security warning.

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