yaaif_skill_guided_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only communicates that a creation action occurs. It does not state whether the draft is persisted, how session_id or agent_id affect the operation, what side effects occur, or what the result looks like. The implied mutating behavior is minimally transparent but nothing else is disclosed.

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The phrase 'via skill_create_guided_draft' adds little value beyond the tool name, and the single sentence does not earn its place with meaningful 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?

This tool sits in a large family of skill/agent tools and has three opaque parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. A one-sentence description leaves the agent unable to determine valid argument values, the nature of the draft, or what a successful call returns. It is far from complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has three parameters (agent_id, arguments, session_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. In particular, the 'arguments' object is a nested free-form object with no guidance on expected keys or structure, so the agent cannot construct a valid call from this description.

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 names a specific action ('Create a guided skill draft') and resource, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it never defines what a 'guided skill draft' is or how it differs from the many sibling skill tools such as yaaif_skill_create or yaaif_skill_develop. The reference to 'skill_create_guided_draft' mostly restates the tool name in internal-function form.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yaaif_skill_create, yaaif_skill_develop, or skill validation tools. No context, prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided.

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