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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing data, if permissions are needed, or what happens if the session is already live). It also doesn't describe the response or errors. The timing caveat 'before Set live' is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb 'Update'. It is concise with no filler, making the core purpose immediately clear.

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?

The tool is complex with 10 parameters, 3 enums, and no output schema. The description only covers the basic update action and timing. It omits behavioral details (return value, error conditions, prerequisites like session state), making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand consequences and use it correctly.

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 50%. The description mentions 'form title, questions, and settings', which maps to title, questions, and settings-related params (followUpMode, responseMode, etc.), providing some context beyond the raw schema. However, it does not describe all parameters like 'goal', 'creationSessionUrl', or the enum details, leaving gaps that the schema's own descriptions partially fill.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Update'), the resource ('homepage creation handoff draft'), and the specific context ('before the user clicks Set live'). It distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools (create_form, create_ask) by focusing on updating an existing draft rather than creating new ones.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: updating the draft before the user clicks 'Set live'. It implies the tool is for pre-publication edits, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when not to use it). This is clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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