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

Annotations already mark this as a non-destructive write, but the description adds genuinely incremental behavior: the output is an *unpublished draft* (staging, not live content) and it must be reviewed before publishing/scheduling. That staging-versus-live distinction is not derivable from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint. It stops short of noting non-idempotency or auth requirements.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the sourcing/next-step hints appended. No filler, though the draft-status fact is split across the first and last sentence rather than consolidated.

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?

No output schema, so the description would ideally say what the draft returns or how to retrieve its review link. It covers the creation flow adequately but leaves caption/campaign meaning and the return/lookup path unaddressed for a 3-required-param write tool.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It compensates well for productIds (source of IDs via list_products, 2–10 count, distinct images) but says nothing about caption or campaign semantics, leaving two of three required parameters undifferentiated from the raw schema types.

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?

Specific verb+resource (create a Facebook link-carousel draft) with clear scope: unpublished, 2–10 owned products with distinct images. It distinguishes itself semantically from photo-carousel siblings, but never names the adjacent tools (create_carousel, create_photo_carousel, create_carousel_from_images, set_facebook_carousel) that an agent would need to weigh against it.

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?

"Choose IDs from list_products" and "Review the draft before publishing or scheduling" give useful surrounding context – the sourcing step and the follow-on step. However there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to the sibling carousel-creation tools, so selection between them is left to inference.

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