draft_spec

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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds the crucial detail that an existing outPath is refused unless overwrite=true, which explains exactly what the destructive flag protects against. It also discloses the response-cap behavior when outPath is omitted, a trait not visible in any structured field. Minor gap: it does not state whether a draft spec can fail validation or what a refused overwrite looks like in the response.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the not-convert warning, then handles output destination and parameter meaning in tight clauses. Four sentences, every one carrying routing, safety, or parameter information with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, yet the description still flags the response-cap constraint for the inline case. For a 5-parameter drafting tool with a destructive overwrite path, the agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by mapping the enum to real artifacts ("one .xlsx workbook or a .zip of CSVs") and explaining baseDate's purpose for time-only columns. These are semantic interpretations the schema descriptions do not supply.

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 artifact ("draft a reviewable converter spec for a loaded document") and immediately delimits scope with "This does not convert anything," which separates it from the sibling convert tool. The phrase "usually after inspect shows its tables" positions it precisely in the load_doc -> inspect -> draft_spec -> convert workflow.

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?

Explicitly names the sequencing condition (after inspect reveals tables) and the downstream alternative ("pass the spec to convert, inline or as the file you saved"). It also gives an in-tool decision rule: save to outPath for human editing, or omit outPath to get JSON back under the response cap.

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