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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: the operation replaces the existing draft, accepts only valid/plan-open elements, and has no publishing side effect. This goes beyond the annotation flags and clarifies the destructive scope.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action ('Replaces the draft'). It packs the element type list, validation rule, publication boundary, and a pointer to examples into a few lines. Minor formatting awkwardness and the ambiguous '13 types' list prevent a perfect score.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, validation constraints, and relationship to publishing, which is good for a destructive draft update. However, it omits the meaning of expected_revision (likely an optimistic-locking requirement) and dry_run, both of which matter for correct invocation. The pointers to other tools help but do not fully close those gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'elements' parameter by listing accepted types, but it says nothing about catalogue_id, expected_revision, or dry_run. The pointer to get_enrichments/capabilities helps for element structure but does not clarify the tool's own parameters, especially the required expected_revision.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replaces the draft' and enumerates the element types (links, buttons, videos, forms, products, galleries, tours, questions). It also differentiates from publish_enrichments by explicitly noting that nothing is published before that separate step, so an agent can distinguish this draft-saving tool from its publishing 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?

The description gives clear context: this tool replaces the draft, rejects invalid or plan-closed elements, and defers publication to publish_enrichments. It points to capabilities and get_enrichments for examples and structure. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the relationship to publish_enrichments is clear enough for routing.

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