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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description's disclosure burden is lower. It adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the operation does not submit and that field values must be strings or null, but it does not explain the nature of the destructive behavior (e.g., overwriting existing drafts) or other side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action and constraint, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, nested object) and high schema coverage, the description provides the essential context: purpose and a key constraint. It doesn't explain alternative parameter combinations (url vs. session_id/access_token), but those are described in the schema. The absence of an output schema also reduces the need for return-value details. Overall, it is sufficient for basic understanding, though slightly thin on side effects.

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 coverage is high (80%), so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by specifying that field values must be strings or null, which is not stated in the fields property description (it only says 'additionalProperties: true'). This extra semantic guidance raises the score.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Save applicant form draft fields without submitting.' The verb 'save' and resource 'applicant form draft fields' are specific, and the phrase 'without submitting' distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_intake. This makes the purpose immediately understandable and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it is for saving draft fields without submission, implying use when the user wants to preserve progress without finalizing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., submit_intake) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit exclusion guidance.

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