Create pending disposition

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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the draft is pending, has no ATF effect until committed, and executes directly. This goes beyond the annotation. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the added context is valuable. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, using three sentences to convey purpose, behavior, and workflow. However, the trailing 'Write.' is extraneous and adds nothing, preventing a perfect score.

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 16 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the many optional fields, the contact object semantics, or the relationship between inline items and add_disposition_items. The workflow guidance is useful but leaves major gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate by explaining key parameters. It does not explain requestType, date, contact vs contactId, items structure, or any other parameter options. The only parameter-related hint is the workflow mention of 'add_disposition_items', which actually conflicts with the schema's inline 'items' property.

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 action ('Create a PENDING (uncommitted) disposition draft') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings by highlighting its pending, uncommitted nature. It also positions it within the workflow (add items, then commit).

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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Add items with add_disposition_items, then finalise with commit_disposition.' It also notes that it 'executes directly' because there is no ATF effect until committed, clarifying the intended usage sequence.

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