Start a draft from a template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the new draft is pre-filled and the template's formatting is preserved exactly rather than reconstructed, which tells the agent the body is a faithful copy. It still omits what happens on an invalid template_id and what the call returns.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the formatting-fidelity detail. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description would ideally tell the agent what a successful call yields (e.g. the new draft id needed for update_draft/set_draft_body) and what happens on failure. For a mutation tool that creates a resource, that return-value context is a meaningful gap, though the creation semantics themselves are adequately covered.

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 description coverage is 75% (title, publication, and template_id documented; subtitle undocumented), which puts the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as how publication is resolved or whether subtitle defaults, so it does not compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 states a specific verb (create) and resource (draft) with the key qualifier that it is pre-filled from a saved template's body, which implicitly separates it from the plain create_draft sibling. However, it never names create_draft or list_templates, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than made explicit.

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 it should call this when a templated starting point is wanted, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. 'use create_draft for an empty draft'). The requirement to first obtain a template_id is only hinted at through the schema's reference to list_templates, not in the description.

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