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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the anonymisation policy (names, links, hosts, repo paths, credentials, project name stripped), the 'stated/approved decisions only' rule, and named refusal codes (`not_settled`, `listing_identifies`). It also makes explicit that nothing is published, so the agent understands the state transition.

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 purpose and the anonymisation guarantee, then describes inputs and refusals. It is dense and every clause carries information, though the single packed paragraph is heavier than necessary and could be split for easier scanning.

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 mutation-style tool with an output schema already defined, it covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites (own project, settled decisions, attestation), side effects (draft only, no publication), follow-on steps, and refusal conditions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it ties `attestation: "own-work"` to a confirmation of publish rights, locates `project_id` on the project card, and imposes an extra constraint on the listing fields (they must not name anything the anonymiser would remove), which the schema does not state.

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+scope: turning one of the caller's OWN projects into a private recipe DRAFT. It also distinguishes itself from the publication tools by clarifying this only produces a draft, not a published listing.

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 strong context: it requires your own project, it only uses stated/approved decisions, and it names the follow-on tool (findagent_submit_for_review) plus the scan/human review that consume the draft. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling draft creators like findagent_create_draft or findagent_create_code_draft, so the agent must infer when to prefer this over them.

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