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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds specific, valuable behavioral constraints beyond annotations: it cannot launch or spend credits, and requires an expectedRevision for concurrency control. However, it doesn't detail what an advanced edit can destroy despite the destructive hint.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The key constraint (expectedRevision, no launch/spend) is front-loaded after the purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 2 required params with 0% schema coverage, nested objects, and an output schema present, the description provides essential context: discovery workflow, expectedRevision, and execution limits. It doesn't explain the output schema's role, but that is acceptable since the output schema exists to handle return values.

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 0% for the two required parameters (operation, arguments). The description compensates by explaining that 'operation' comes from find_operations and 'arguments' must match its fetched schema, and adds a critical expectedRevision requirement likely nested in arguments. However, it doesn't fully specify the operation ID format or argument structure.

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 ('Execute an advanced draft edit') and resource, and explicitly ties it to the discovery tool find_operations, which is a sibling. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like launch_test and read_advanced.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite workflow: the operation must first be discovered with find_operations, and the arguments must match its fetched schema. It also provides clearer exclusions ('Cannot launch or spend credits'), though those are framed behaviorally rather than as alternative routing.

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