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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true. Description adds key behavioral details: returns existing draft if one exists, and that file-based documents cannot be edited via ChatGPT. No contradiction 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add a critical caveat. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), description covers main behavior, idempotency, and a usage constraint. Could briefly mention return value but output schema likely handles that.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining that body_markdown 'copies the previous rich-text content when available' if omitted, which goes beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a draft revision for an existing document, and distinguishes from siblings like publish-document-revision-tool by specifying 'draft'. It also notes idempotent behavior (returns existing draft), which differentiates from creation tools.

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 clear when-to-use context (after a version is published) and a specific when-not-to-use (file-based documents cannot be edited via ChatGPT, use web app). Does not explicitly name sibling alternatives but the guidance is still helpful.

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