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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: the required permission scope, the fact that no payment/payout setup is needed, the source/credit retention obligation, and the idempotency-key expectation. It does not say what the created draft looks like or what identifier comes back.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and permission scope, then constraints. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the terse staccato style and jargon like 'products:write' cost some readability.

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 create tool with a deep nested content object, an array of route nodes, no output schema and 0% schema descriptions, the description covers safety and permissions but not the shape of what to supply or what is returned. An agent still lacks guidance on structuring content or on how the resulting draft is referenced by update/publish.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it does not. Only idempotency_key gets explicit meaning ('use a stable idempotency key'), with 'material sources and credit' loosely hinting at source_notes/credit; content's ten nested fields, route_nodes, media_source_item_id, brand_name and language are all unexplained.

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 with a narrowing qualifier: 'Create one private operating draft' plus required permission. The closing clause ('No publication, booking, external outreach or financial action') demarcates it from sibling tools like evuun_publish_business_product, though it never names that sibling.

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 concrete preconditions (requires products:write, no payment or payout setup needed) and explicit exclusions (no publication, booking, outreach, financial action). What is missing is a direct pointer such as 'to make it visible use evuun_publish_business_product', so routing vs. siblings is inferred rather than stated.

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