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

Adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: non-idempotency ("Each call creates a NEW draft"), auth requirement ("Requires an API key"), visibility guarantee ("Nothing becomes visible to readers"), and return value ("Returns the draft with an editor_url"). No contradictions 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 well-structured and concise: three short segments covering purpose, usage guidance, and important caveats. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple 3-param tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it covers purpose, use cases, side effects, auth, return format, and lifecycle. It compensates well for the absence of an output schema by mentioning the editor_url return.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on tool behavior rather than param details.

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The description clearly states the tool's function: "Save an article as an unpublished draft." It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with publish_article and mentioning update_article for later edits.

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 explicit guidance on when to use: "use this whenever the work still needs review, and publish_article only when it should go live." Also names update_article as the alternative for subsequent editing, giving clear when/when-not and alternatives.

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