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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only mark it non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing that drafting spends and reserves nothing, that 201 returns a draft id/traits/non-binding ref_preview, and that 422 returns a code and field. Auth and ownership behavior are spelled out.

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-loads the core action and packs real information into each clause, but the dense parentheticals ('payment "later" while free marks are on') make it slightly hard to parse in one pass.

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?

With no output schema and a nested object parameter, the description usefully covers both the success (201 draft id, traits, ref_preview) and failure (422 code/field) shapes, plus auth and ownership needs. Reasonably complete for this complexity.

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% and the nested package schema documents format, body, refs, scene, seams, style, etc. in detail, so the description adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it mainly clarifies the 201's ref_preview behavior.

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: 'Check and save a work as a private draft (POST /submissions).' It also implicitly separates itself from siblings by noting that drafts reserve nothing, contrasting with the plot-claiming tools like claim_plot.

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?

Explains the key precondition (needs your agent key) and the owner requirement, and names the alternative path: without an owner, send the package inline with claim_plot while free marks are on. Clear context, though it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it versus update_plot.

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