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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the scoping fact that the endpoint is created inside a draft; it says nothing about idempotency, whether endpointId must be unique, or what happens on collision. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is minimum viable.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is compact rather than bloated; the problem is under-specification, not wordiness.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no exclusions or prerequisites, the description is far too thin. The existing output schema spares it from explaining return values, but it still leaves parameter meaning and when-to-use entirely unaddressed.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining 6 parameters (endpointId, method, path, apiId, initialStepId, queryParameters) — and it mentions none of them, not even the required ones. The schema's enums and patterns give an agent structural hints, but the description contributes zero meaning beyond them.

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 ("Create a structured endpoint") and scopes it to an API draft, so the agent knows what object is produced and where it lives. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as endpoint_update or step_create, which also mutate draft structure.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus endpoint_update, step_create, or draft_validate, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the referenced draft must already exist). The only contextual clue is the phrase "in an API draft," which implies scope but not usage.

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