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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Changes nothing; create_drift_monitor creates the items' and 'nothing created' in the title. It goes beyond annotations by disclosing the error contract ({error, kind, hint}) and the fact that the webhook is carried as a pipeline parameter, though it never explains that webhook configuration path or what happens if the webhook is absent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and the safety statement, then requirements, return shape and error shape in terse clauses. The opening sentence is long and packs four separate behaviors, but every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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 7-parameter, non-destructive draft tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers behavior, prerequisites, side-effect profile and error shape. The only real gap is disambiguation from plan_drift and clarification of where the webhook value comes from, given no such parameter exists.

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 100% with per-parameter defaults and examples for at, name, schema, time_zone and library_ref, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the derived name pattern context and the required-parameter framing, but the mention of a webhook 'set as a pipeline parameter' has no corresponding parameter in the schema, which adds ambiguity rather than meaning.

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 (drafts) and a concrete compound resource (Fabric notebook, pipeline and schedule), plus the actual behavior: read lakehouse schema, diff against the last plan in krusgraph.plans, post a summary to a webhook. It explicitly names the sibling that performs the write (create_drift_monitor), so the agent can separate draft from create without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative that actually creates the items and states the prerequisite (workspace plus lakehouse source), which effectively frames this as the preview step before create_drift_monitor. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling plan_drift, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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