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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds real value beyond them: partial-update semantics, that the whole release is re-validated, what is returned (problems or preview link), and that it costs no credit. It still doesn't say what happens to validation failures or whether the draft stays unpublished.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: mutation scope, return behavior, and cost. The partial-update rule is front-loaded 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 12-parameter mutation tool with a fully documented schema, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essentials: partial update, re-validation, return values, and zero credit cost. It is slightly thin on failure behavior but complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so all 12 parameters are already documented in the schema with constraints (word counts, character limits, item caps). The description adds only the generic partial-update rule, which is a baseline-level contribution, not parameter-specific detail.

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 (changes fields), resource (draft press release), and a meaningful scope constraint ('draft'), which implicitly separates it from siblings like fix_live_release and publish_release. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 'draft press release' and 'only the fields you send' phrasing implies when to use it (partial edits on drafts, not creation or publishing), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for cases like a missing release or a live one.

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