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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value by clarifying that the prior sent version 'stays intact', i.e. this is additive rather than overwriting. It is silent on the notable behavioral risk implied by expectedRowVersion (optimistic concurrency / conflict on stale version) and on what 'unsent' means operationally.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core outcome (new unsent version) is front-loaded ahead of the side-effect reassurance. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 tool with a large nested input schema, 0% parameter coverage, no output schema and a concurrency-token requirement, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot know how to populate content, how to obtain expectedRowVersion, or what happens on a version conflict.

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% and there are 4 required parameters, including a deeply nested content object, so the description carries the full burden and fails. It explains nothing about expectedRowVersion (concurrency token), deadlineAt (deadline semantics), id, or the structure of content. Only 'version' loosely maps to a parameter.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Save a new unsent version' states exactly what is created and its state (unsent). It also distinguishes itself from the send path via 'after a customer requests changes', though it never names a sibling tool explicitly. Adequate for a tool with no direct lookalike among the listed siblings.

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 phrase 'after a customer requests changes' gives an implied trigger condition, which is more than most tools offer. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and no pointer to alternatives such as send_approval_request for actually dispatching the revision.

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