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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation risk is signaled structurally. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the state gate on which assets can be edited. It omits patch-vs-replace semantics, permission/ownership requirements, and whether edits are reversible.

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, with the operative constraint front-loaded after the purpose. The brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it swings toward under-specification for a 7-parameter mutation.

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 destructive, 7-parameter, low-schema-coverage tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum enumerate editable fields or clarify partial-update behavior. Instead it covers only the immutability rule, leaving the mechanics of the edit largely undisclosed.

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 only 14% across 7 parameters, so the schema does the opposite of heavy lifting. The description names no editable fields (title, channel, content, asset_type, scheduled_for, revision_notes) even though it could cheaply enumerate what 'edit' touches, leaving six parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Edit an owned draft') and scopes it to drafts, distinguishing it from the many create/approve/submit/reject content-asset siblings. It stops short of naming the revision tool an agent should use instead, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 immutability rule ('Submitted/approved/rejected revisions are immutable and must be revised') gives a clear when-not condition and effectively routes the agent toward the revision flow. It never names the sibling tool (e.g. create_content_asset_revision) explicitly, so the routing requires inference.

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