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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds behavioral context by stating the tool validates and saves, and cannot publish or activate. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, such as whether existing drafts are overwritten or if any permissions are required. This is sufficient given the annotations, but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the limitation is stated in a second sentence. 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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and a key limitation. However, it omits details about return values, error behavior on validation failure, or what 'draft' implies in the system. The annotations mitigate some of this, but the description could be more complete for a mutation tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and a single 'workflow' parameter that is an opaque object with additionalProperties: true. The description calls it a 'workflow declaration,' which gives some semantic hint, but it does not explain its structure, required fields, or validation criteria. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate more than this.

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: 'Validate and save a workflow declaration as a draft.' It uses a specific verb ('save') and resource ('workflow declaration'), and the phrase 'as a draft' indicates the output state. This also distinguishes it from siblings like save_intake_draft, which targets intake drafts rather than workflow drafts.

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: use this tool to validate and save a workflow declaration as a draft. It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'This tool cannot publish or activate the workflow,' which tells the agent when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools for publishing or activation, so it falls short of a 5.

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