draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the non-sending title, but the description adds valuable context: it opens the conversation with text pre-filled, permits accents, and describes the exact follow-up sending flow via act with confirmation and visual verification. It does not cover whether drafts persist or are editable, but it goes well beyond the structured safety hints.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then parameter details, then the sending condition, so an agent can parse it efficiently. It is dense but every sentence adds operational value; minor run-on structure prevents a perfect score.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral constraints, and the exact handoff to act for sending. The annotations already cover the safety profile, and nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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 substantially by explaining the 'to' parameter's accepted formats (name, phone number, conversation number in brackets, digits alone) and the 'app' enum values (sms/RCS or whatsapp). It also implicitly covers 'text' as the pre-written message body and notes accents are allowed, though it does not elaborate on text formatting or limits.

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 specific verb and resource: preparing a reply without sending it, opening the conversation with the text already written. It explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'act', which is reserved for actually sending. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and does not do.

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?

Gives a clear condition for using this tool (prepare without sending) and a clear alternative (use act with confirm) only when the user explicitly says 'envoie' for this draft. It also specifies target formats and app choices, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke draft versus act.

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