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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that existing answers are overwritten, that omitted/empty valueText clears saved text, that the current review state is replaced and evidence review is reset, and that review scope is required. These are exactly the destructive consequences an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary actions and consequences. No filler, though the last clause about review scope sits after the negation stack and could be slightly reordered for scannability.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential preconditions (scope), side effects (overwrite, clear, review reset), and boundary (no approve/promote). It does not describe the response, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates for the undocumented fields by explaining valueText semantics ('omitted or empty valueText clears the saved text') and review-state behavior. questionId and reviewStatus remain only schema-defined, but the added meaning for the highest-risk parameter is meaningful.

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 a draft answer or request changes' against 'the answer for this question'. It also draws functional boundaries by negation ('cannot approve an answer or promote it to the answer library'), which separates it from approval/promotion siblings without naming them. Clear, though it never names a specific alternative tool.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use (save a draft answer, request changes) and a when-not-to-use (cannot approve or promote, implying sibling tools handle that). 'Requesting changes requires review scope' adds a prerequisite. Alternatives are only implied, not named, which keeps it from a 5.

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