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

Annotations already establish the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: the draft is not public, the response carries publication-blocking feedback.issues, and there is a shell/file-based variant. It stops short of error or permission semantics, but this is well above the annotation baseline.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose before any workflow detail. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction; nothing is repeated from the schema 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no prose, yet the description still flags the one response field that changes agent behavior (feedback.issues). Prerequisite, follow-up tools, and the shell branch are all covered for a 2-parameter creation 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: it explains when to omit html (shell workflow) and why the default-null html is acceptable, which is precisely the ambiguity the schema leaves open.

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 with scope: 'Save a new page as a draft. Nothing is public yet.' This immediately distinguishes it from publish_page and update_page, and an agent can tell it apart from its siblings without opening either schema.

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?

Prescribes the full workflow and names the alternatives at each step: call get_page_guide first, fix blocking feedback.issues with update_page, then surface preview_page's link. The conditional shell path ('omit html: run the returned command') covers the alternate invocation route.

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