Explain a queued draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: required OAuth scope luca:read, data sensitivity of full_content, an explicit statement that idempotency is not required, and workspace-override behavior. Only the raw metadata lines (HTTP endpoint, 'Luca operation') are boilerplate.

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 substantive content is front-loaded in one dense, informative sentence, followed by short labeled lines that are easy to scan. Some of the operational metadata (endpoint path, 'Does not require idempotency') is boilerplate that an agent rarely needs, but it is compact rather than verbose.

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-value detail is not required, and annotations plus the scope/sensitivity lines cover the safety and authorization profile for a read-only explain call. The remaining gap is routing guidance — nothing tells the agent why to pick this over the other review-queue read tools.

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 67% and the required `id` has no schema description, but the description supplies its meaning via the path '/api/review-queue/{id}/explain'. It also adds semantics the schema lacks: workspaceId/workspaceSlug override a default workspace configured by the environment, which is more than the schema's generic 'Optional Luca workspace id override.'

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 ("explain the signals behind a drafted reply") and enumerates exactly what the explanation contains: voice-match score, critic findings, and the motivating qualification. This is clearly distinct from sibling mutations like luca_review_queue_approve, though it does not explicitly contrast with the nearby luca_leads_explain or luca_review_queue_summary.

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?

"Explain the signals behind a drafted reply" implies the use case, but the description never states when to call this versus alternatives such as luca_review_queue_summary, luca_review_queue_changes, or luca_leads_explain, nor any when-not condition. The only actionable guidance is a prerequisite (review_queue:read scope), not tool selection.

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