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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing restricted internal access, the kunci requirement, and the draft/owner-approval/PayPal lifecycle. However, it does not explain mutation side effects such as overwrite behavior, validation failures, idempotency, or what is returned after saving.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded: access restriction first, then the action and lifecycle. Every clause carries useful information, 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?

This is an unannotated five-parameter write tool with no output schema, so the description needs to carry more weight. It explains the main purpose and access restriction but is not complete enough about parameter meanings, return behavior, or save semantics for an agent to invoke it confidently in edge cases.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate, but it mostly repeats what the schema already says for isi and kunci. It leaves nama, deskripsi, and harga_usd undocumented apart from a weak implication that the product is sold via PayPal; the price and optional description semantics are not clarified.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: save a finished digital product as a draft. It clearly distinguishes the action from selling directly by noting owner approval and PayPal sale later. It does not name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It implies the usage condition: save a finished deliverable when the TerTau agent has completed it, and states the caller must be the TerTau agent with a valid kunci. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of siblings such as pasang_jualan, nor does it name exclusions or alternatives.

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