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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered. The description adds a useful scope constraint ('only edit drafts'), but does not disclose overwrite behavior, partial-update behavior, or any auth constraints beyond what the annotations provide.

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 tight sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the scope restriction and sibling routing.

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 three-parameter draft update with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, draft-only scope, and delivery alternatives. It could have been slightly more complete by clarifying partial update behavior or overwrite semantics, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description names 'content' and 'status' but adds no format, enum, or usage detail beyond what the schema already supplies, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Update), resource (a Postel draft), and scope (content or status). It distinguishes the tool from sibling delivery tools by explicitly limiting it to drafts and routing delivery to schedule-post or publish-post.

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?

It gives explicit when-not guidance ('Only edit drafts') and names alternatives for the excluded case ('use schedule-post or publish-post for delivery'). An agent can select this tool without having to infer its appropriate context.

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