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

The description says the tool will "Replace the whole draft content" and warns against overwriting newer content, which describes a destructive overwrite of existing draft content. That conflicts with destructiveHint=false, which indicates only additive updates. The version-conflict guidance is valuable, but the destructiveHint contradiction requires a score of 1.

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: the replacement action comes first, followed by the version source and conflict-recovery rule. Every sentence serves the workflow, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The tool has a fully described schema and an output schema, so return values do not need explanation in the description. The description supplies the critical whole-replacement and optimistic-concurrency context. It is nearly complete, though it does not address the destructive nature of replacing prior draft content.

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 100%, so the schema already documents id, token, version, and content in detail. The description reinforces the version parameter's origin and the version_conflict behavior, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for the other parameters. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, "Replace the whole draft content," which clearly identifies a whole-object update rather than a read or create. It is easy to distinguish from get_poll_draft and create_poll_draft based on the stated action.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite: send the version just read with get_poll_draft. It also explains the version_conflict recovery path: re-read the draft, re-apply the change, and do not overwrite newer content with an older copy. It does not explicitly contrast when to use this versus create_poll_draft, but the surrounding context makes that distinction clear.

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