Score Draft

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool consumes 2 orchyn credits and outlines what the response will contain (scores, fixes, rewritten hook, tightened draft). The read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations are consistent with this being a review-only operation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences carry all the essential information: what the tool does, what it returns, its cost, and the best time to use it. The purpose is front-loaded before cost and usage timing. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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 tool with a single required string, the description is complete: it covers when to use, what it does, cost, and expected outputs. The presence of an output schema means detailed return-value documentation is unnecessary. The only minor omission is elaboration on the platform parameter, but the schema already documents its default.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'film or post' aligns with the draft parameter but adds no new detail about the platform parameter or the draft format beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate further for parameter semantics.

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 ('Review your own draft') and resource (your draft), then enumerates the concrete outputs: hook strength, clarity and payoff scores, concrete fixes, a rewritten hook, and a tightened draft. The phrase 'your own draft' and 'BEFORE you film or post it' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that analyze existing posts or generate hooks.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Use before filming, while changing it is still cheap.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, and the self-draft scope implicitly distinguishes it from analyzing others' posts. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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