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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the destructive-replacement semantics ('det sparade utkastet ersätts med payload'), a non-obvious partial-retention rule (INK2 postnummer/postort retained from the previous draft), the return ('ok och när utkastet sparades') and an auth requirement ('Kräver behörigheten statutory'). These are exactly the behaviors an agent must know before calling a whole-document overwrite.

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?

Everything is front-loaded — save scope first, usage rule second, return/side effects/permission after — and each clause carries distinct information. It is dense as a single paragraph, but there is little that could be cut without losing a decision-relevant fact.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the return value ('ok och när utkastet sparades'), the overwrite/replacement behavior, the partial-retention exception, the required permission, and the companion read/write siblings. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning on top by clarifying that payload is the entire draft (not a patch) written as a full replacement, and that only the INK2 address fields survive from the prior draft. It does not add formatting detail beyond the schema, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Sparar hela utkastet till årsredovisningen för ett räkenskapsår' (saves the whole annual report draft for a fiscal year), and it enumerates the contents (resultat- och balansräkning, noter, förvaltningsberättelse, undertecknare). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings read_annual_report_draft and set_arsredovisning_inputs, so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit when: 'Använd bara när du har hela utkastet'. Gives an explicit when-not plus the alternative: 'för att ändra enstaka uppgifter, använd set_arsredovisning_inputs, som skriver en delmängd och returnerar vad som återstår'. The selection rule is fully spelled out.

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