draft_agreement

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical validation behavior (always validates, never claims validity without confirmation) and the structured rule format. While it doesn't mention error handling or permissions, the core behavioral traits are well communicated.

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, no redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and includes a critical behavioral guarantee. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's functionality and safety guarantee. It could optionally mention the output format or errors, but it is adequate for an agent to understand its use.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning: it specifies that 'rules' is an array of objects with fields verb/condition/reason/unless/starting/until, and that 'template_id' returns a vendored template. The 'about' parameter remains undefined but is optional; overall, the description compensates significantly for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states the tool assembles a Liminate Agreement from structured rules or returns a vendored template, with validation guarantee. This action verb and resource are specific and distinguish from sibling tools like validate_agreement or explain_clause.

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 implies use cases (drafting from rules or template), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_agreement or test_agreement. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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