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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: drafts are saved but never publish, draft_planned_for is a planning date only (not a scheduler), and API keys require explicit drafts:write scope with no implicit grant. These details are not present in the annotations and help the agent understand side effects and prerequisites.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: the core purpose, a field clarification, and authorization/input requirements. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no redundant or filler text.

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 create tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential behavior (never publishes), clarifies a potentially confusing field (draft_planned_for), and highlights the critical auth scope requirement. It does not mention workspace_id requirements, but that is documented in the schema. The lack of return-value description is acceptable given the absence of an output schema, but the description is not exhaustive.

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 83%, and the schema already documents the key parameters (platform, platforms, draft_planned_for, workspace_id, etc.). The description only restates constraints already in the schema, such as the platform/platforms requirement and the non-scheduling nature of draft_planned_for, without adding new parameter-level semantics.

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'), and the phrase 'never publishes' strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_post and create_scheduled_post. This makes the tool's purpose 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?

The description provides useful usage context: drafts are work-in-progress and never publish, so this tool is appropriate for non-publishing content. It also specifies critical prerequisites (platform/platforms requirement, drafts:write scope). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for publishing scenarios, though the 'never publishes' phrase implies the exclusion.

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