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

Exceeds the annotations substantially: annotations only declare idempotent/non-readOnly/non-destructive, while the description adds the permission required, optimistic-concurrency semantics via version pinning, an explicit conflict-resolution policy instead of blind overwrite, and negative guarantees (no historical order mutation, no publishing). Those side-effect boundaries are exactly what an agent needs before mutating.

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 operation and permission, then the conflict rule, then scope boundaries. 'Same record as browser and API' is the only slightly opaque line, but it is short and does not bury the operative constraints.

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 high-complexity mutation (nested object, 20-item array, 8 params, no output schema) it fully covers governance and conflict behavior but leaves the payload shape undocumented and says nothing about what a successful response returns or how nothing-needed-changed is reported. Adequate to call safely, incomplete to call 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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries full burden, yet it explains only the intent behind expected_version ('exact version') and mentions no meaning for content, route_nodes, language, brand_name, media_source_item_id, or idempotency_key. The nested content object with ten undocumented fields is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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 ('Update the exact version of an owned operating draft') and scopes it to an owned draft rather than a published or historical record. It implies distance from evuun_create_business_product and evuun_publish_business_product ('does not publish the changes') but never names a sibling explicitly.

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 a concrete precondition (products:write business permission) and a concrete recovery path on PRODUCT_VERSION_CONFLICT ('read and merge; do not silently overwrite'), which is real when/when-not guidance. It does not, however, say how this differs from evuun_set_business_product_price or evuun_pause_business_product when those might seem applicable.

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