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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses CAS-style concurrency semantics and explicitly caps the side effects (no publish, no scheduling, no consent claimed, no recurrence granted) — useful given openWorldHint=false. It does not explain the destructiveHint=true behavior: that saving overwrites existing draft content under the expected_revision guard, nor what happens on a revision conflict.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its concurrency mechanism, with the side-effect limits in the second sentence. Dense domain jargon ('native draft CAS') costs a little readability but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the safety contract is stated. But for a destructive six-parameter nested mutation with zero schema documentation, the description leaves conflict/idempotency behavior (request_key), revision handling, and the overwrite semantics unaddressed.

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 six required parameters and deeply nested content/destinations objects, so the description carries the full burden. 'Literal content' and 'exact selected owned assets' hint that content is stored verbatim and media/destinations must reference owned assets with exact revisions, but workspace_id, draft_id, request_key and the CAS role of expected_revision are never explained.

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 ('save ... content and exact selected owned assets/destinations') and names the mechanism ('native draft CAS'), so the agent knows this writes a draft rather than publishing it. It does not name a sibling explicitly, though the negative clauses implicitly separate it from publish_social_draft, schedule_social_draft and native.social_save_draft.

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 clause 'does not publish, schedule, claim creator consent or grant recurrence' tells the agent when this tool is insufficient, which implies the publish/schedule siblings are the alternatives. However, no sibling is ever named and there is no positive 'use this when...' statement, so the routing 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.