Create Draft Reply

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the draft nature but lacks details on side effects (e.g., does it create notifications?), required permissions, error states, or what happens to previous drafts. The output schema exists but is not visible.

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 description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core function.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not address how drafts are managed, whether they are user-specific, or how to retrieve them later. The existence of an output schema is accounted for, but the description still falls short.

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. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions; it only restates the purpose. The schema already explains the semantics of each parameter (e.g., omitting vs. passing empty arrays for recipients).

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 verb (create) and resource (draft reply) with the distinguishing feature 'that can be edited before sending', which sets it apart from similar tools like sending a reply directly. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. sibling tools like freescout_add_note or freescout_update_ticket. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use.

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