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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: it is not idempotent ('Retrying creates another draft'), which warns an agent against blind retries. It does not cover permissions or the returned object, but the retry caveat is a substantive addition.

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, each earning its place: the action, the scope exclusion, and the retry behavior. The core verb+resource is front-loaded with no preamble or filler.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, and retry semantics, which is enough to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as what the call returns or where the new draft lands, which would be nice but not essential.

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%, with both 'status' (enum with default) and 'content' documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what status EDITING implies) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ... as a new draft in Postel') and explicitly bounds it against the sibling write actions publish-post and schedule-post via 'Does not publish or schedule.' An agent can distinguish it from the other post-manipulation tools without opening the 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 phrase 'user-approved text' signals the prerequisite that content must already be reviewed/approved before calling, and the negations implicitly route publishing and scheduling to the sibling tools. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear context without full when/when-not routing.

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