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

The description discloses the asynchronous build ('build_status: 'building''), the need to re-call for final results, the advisory non-blocking nature of smoke, and the server-side blocking behavior. These details go well beyond the annotations and are consistent with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; no contradiction exists.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and returns. It earns most of its length by explaining asynchronous behavior, smoke semantics, and blocking rules, though the single long paragraph is slightly run-on and repeats some smoke wording already present in the schema.

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 complex gating tool, this description is complete: it explains where the tool fits in the workflow, what blocking vs advisory means, how async builds behave, how smoke is gated on build success, and what prerequisite input is required. The output schema covers return-value details, so nothing material is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context beyond the schema: it emphasizes that the draft must be YOUR OWN, and it clarifies that smoke exists to confirm the agent 'actually responds with the credentials you saved' after the build passes.

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?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate YOUR OWN draft BEFORE submitting it' and ties the tool to the submit gate. It clearly distinguishes preflight from submit and status siblings by explaining it surfaces the same checks before they would block submission.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('BEFORE submitting', 'fix issues first') and the consequence of skipping it: 'Submit ... is blocked server-side until this passes.' It also gives granular usage conditions, such as the code-agent build path, optional smoke runs, and the need to pass a draft slug or id.

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