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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the operation is non-publishing, non-scheduling, and non-idempotent ('Each call creates a separate draft'), which warns against accidental duplicate drafts. It omits any note on required auth or what the created draft returns.

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, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the constraints. Every sentence earns its place by adding either scope or behavioral guidance.

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 simple two-parameter create with no output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusions, and the duplicate-draft behavior. It could be slightly more complete by indicating what the call returns (e.g., a draft id), but nothing critical to correct invocation 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% and both parameters (content, status with its enum and default) are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'Save text' loosely maps to content but adds no format, length, or status semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Save text as a new draft') with the target system named, and immediately scopes it against the obvious siblings by saying it does not publish or schedule. An agent can distinguish it from publish-post, schedule-post, and update-post without opening any 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?

The description gives clear negative guidance ('Does not publish or schedule'), which effectively routes the agent toward publish-post/schedule-post for those needs. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is strong context rather than a full when/when-not/alternative mapping.

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