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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing return content ('the problems to fix, or the updated preview link'), that the whole release is re-validated on every change, and that it costs no credit. With readOnlyHint=false already declared, the description adds the operationally important details of validation feedback and cost.

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, front-loaded with the core action and partial-update rule, followed by return values and cost. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 with no output schema, the description covers return shape, validation behavior, and cost. It omits what happens if validation fails (e.g. whether the update is still saved) and any precondition that the release must be in draft state, but is otherwise sufficient to call 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 coverage is 100%, so per-field constraints are already documented. The description still adds real semantic value by clarifying that omitted fields are left unchanged rather than cleared, which the schema alone does not state.

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 and resource ('Changes fields of a draft press release') plus the re-validation side effect. The word 'draft' implicitly separates it from fix_live_release, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'draft press release' signals it applies only to unpublished releases, and '(only the fields you send)' signals partial updates. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing against create_release, fix_live_release, or preview_press_release.

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