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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds real value beyond them: the draft (unapproved) state, the constraint that drafts must not be emailed/posted/quoted, and that approved records are not overwritten. It omits concurrency/error behavior beyond the revision note.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; purpose comes first and constraints follow. Slightly telegraphic in places (e.g., the bare expectedRevision clause), but every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the draft/approval semantics are well covered. However, with five required parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most parameter meaning unexplained, which is a gap for a multi-parameter mutation.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet it explains only one of six parameters ('A changed draft requires expectedRevision'). libraryId, name, kind, channels, and body semantics are left entirely to the schema. Partial compensation only.

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+output state: 'Save exact wording as a draft.' It also delineates scope against approval-oriented siblings ('An approved record is not replaced by this tool. Suggest a change instead'), effectively pointing to suggest_sendable_change. Siblings aren't named by exact identifier, but the distinction is clear.

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?

Provides explicit when-not guidance ('must not be emailed, posted, or quoted') and an alternative path ('Suggest a change instead') that maps to suggest_sendable_change. The routing is present, though the alternative isn't named formally and no prerequisites for the surrounding workflow are given.

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