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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that while adding what the read actually yields: a review-page link, a change summary, and whether a plan is required. It stops short of describing failure modes, such as what happens when the draft is incomplete or the ref is invalid.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does first, what it returns second, the safety boundary last. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return shape and the safety boundary — it does both, naming the review link and change summary and clarifying that no publish action occurs. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 both 'ref' (fudge://project/… ref) and 'store' (omit when only one is connected) are already documented. The description adds only the notion of a 'finished draft', which implies but does not define the state required for the ref — baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Prepare a finished draft for the merchant's publish decision') and explicitly bounds it by saying it does not publish — only the merchant can, in Fudge. That negative framing distinguishes it from any write/publish path an agent might otherwise reach for.

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 trigger is clear: use it when a draft is finished and the merchant needs to make a publish decision. It also states what it will not do (publish), which is an effective exclusion, but it never names a sibling to route to when the intent is actually to create a plan or publish.

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