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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing write semantics, mandatory user confirmation, per-write confirmation even after 'approve all', draft_id invalidation, merge-vs-replace behavior, and the fact that nulls in content are ignored. This gives the agent critical operational knowledge that annotations alone do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the essential purpose and the write-confirmation warning, then structured as an executable action list. There is some redundancy around re-approval and new draft_id, but the length is justified by the tool's nuanced invalidation and confirmation flow.

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?

The description covers the full lifecycle relevant to this tool: what changes, how merging works, how to remove fields, what the response contains, why the old draft_id is invalid, and how to proceed with confirm_draft. Even without an output schema, the agent has enough to call the tool correctly and handle the result.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: id is the draft_id and is invalidated by the edit, content is a partial merge, mode can replace the whole payload, and remove_fields is the only way to delete fields. This is a useful supplement to the schema's already-detailed parameter descriptions.

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 action: 'Change the content of a pending server-stored draft without executing it.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like confirm_draft and get_draft by emphasizing the edit step and explicitly ruling out execution.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: editing a pending draft before confirmation. It also explains the relationship to confirm_draft and warns that edits invalidate prior approval, which guides sequencing. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives such as get_draft, but the main workflow implication is strong enough.

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