draft

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

Annotations already cover mutation/safety hints, but the description adds important behavior: the draft is prepared without sending, the token is tied to the exact draft and voided by any change, and sending requires confirm=true plus a look check. These details go well beyond the 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?

The purpose is front-loaded, followed by compact parameter guidance and then the send gate. The formatting is dense but every clause carries operational value, including the exact act invocation needed to send safely.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the returned token and how to validate sending. Combined with the annotations, it gives an agent enough context to draft safely and avoid accidental sends.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for all three parameters: it explains acceptable `to` formats (address book name, phone number, bracketed conversation number), the `app` choices (sms/RCS or whatsapp), and that `text` may include accents. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 names a specific action ('Prepare a reply without sending it') and resource ('the conversation') and clearly scopes it as a non-send draft. This distinguishes it from the act/send workflow it references later.

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?

It gives an explicit gate for sending: only when the user explicitly says 'send' for THIS draft, then use act with the returned token and verify with look. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including the alternative sending workflow.

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