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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds real context beyond them: the idempotency mechanism (stable clientRequestId kept across transport loss), conflict behavior (retain authored bytes, reconcile the returned draft via soclo_work_drafts_read), null-draft semantics, and the absence of side effects ('starts no generation, publication or charge'). It does not cover authorization requirements or why destructiveHint is set, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then conflict/semantics rules, then a side-effect disclaimer; every sentence carries information and none is filler. The density is high and a couple of clauses are terse, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutating, idempotent tool with no output schema and zero param coverage, the description supplies conflict handling, retry/idempotency guidance, null semantics, and cost/side-effect expectations, and even hints at the returned current draft. The undefined 'slot' concept is the main omission.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and mostly does: base is defined as the exact base from the last result shown to the owner, clientRequestId as a stable idempotency ID preserved across transport loss, and draft's null value as an explicit clear. Only 'slot' is named without any semantic explanation, which is the remaining gap.

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+resource: 'Persist one authored edit' to a 'work draft'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read path by naming soclo_work_drafts_read as the reconciliation tool, so an agent can tell edit apart from read/discover without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when (save an authored edit using the exact base you last showed the owner), when-not (never refresh the base invisibly, never overwrite another client's edit), and the alternative to reach for on conflict (soclo_work_drafts_read). Routing is unambiguous.

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