Explain a queued draft

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

Annotations already declare the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the description's job is lighter, and it delivers extra context: required scopes (review_queue:read, luca:read), data sensitivity 'full_content', and the workspace override behavior. The line 'Does not require idempotency' is slightly muddled against idempotentHint=true but reads as 'no idempotency key needed,' consistent with a read.

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 sentence is front-loaded and information-dense, followed by a clean block of operational metadata (operation, scopes, sensitivity). The idempotency line is marginally useful boilerplate but overall nothing is wasted.

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 values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. With scopes, sensitivity, the endpoint, and workspace-override semantics covered, an agent has what it needs to invoke this correctly; only explicit routing versus siblings is absent.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the schema already documents workspaceId and workspaceSlug, but the description adds the meaningful behavior that these override the environment-configured default workspace, which the schema does not convey. The primary 'id' parameter's meaning (the review-queue item) is only implied via the path, leaving a small gap.

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 ('Explain') and resource ('drafted reply'/queued draft) and enumerates what is explained: voice-match score, critic findings, and the motivating qualification. This clearly separates it from the sibling queue operations (list/approve/reject/restore) without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to inspect a queued draft before deciding on it, but the description never states when to reach for this versus luca_review_queue_list or luca_review_queue_objection_variant, nor any prerequisite such as the draft being in the queue. Adequate context, no explicit when/when-not.

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