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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: the note is preserved, repeated requests open the same article without overwriting edits, and the tool does not publish. This is meaningful context for a mutation 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The core action comes first, followed by the preservation and idempotency guarantees and the no-publish boundary, each earning its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key mutation semantics (preservation, idempotency, no publish). The one gap is that the parameters, especially the required draftId, are left undefined.

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?

All three parameters (writer, draftId, workspace) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It never clarifies that draftId is the required note/draft reference or what writer and workspace control, so the required input's meaning must be guessed.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a linked article draft from a saved note'), which is clear and distinguishes the source (a note) from a generic draft. It does not explicitly name a sibling like create_draft or schedule_article, so differentiation is implied 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?

Usage is implied by 'from a saved note' and 'Does not publish', which hints that schedule_article handles publishing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives such as create_draft vs create_article_from_note, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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