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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that: it does not mention the version-based concurrency expectation or what idempotency_key protects against, both of which matter for a write tool.

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, front-loaded with the action, and the disambiguating negation earns its place. It is efficient, though efficiency here is partly achieved by omission.

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 four-parameter required mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot learn from it how version conflicts are handled or what an idempotency key should contain, which are essential for correct invocation.

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 all four parameters are required, yet the description explains none of them. Only a faint implication links 'your draft' to draft_id; version, artwork_id (single enum), and idempotency_key remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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+resource+scope: adds approved decorative artwork to a draft. The qualifier 'approved decorative' and the negation 'not purchased postage' narrow the intent well, though no sibling tool is named for contrast.

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 clause 'This is not purchased postage' implicitly excludes one use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use condition, no prerequisite state (draft must exist/be editable), and no alternative tool named.

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