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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, idempotent mutation, but the description adds real context beyond them: it never generates or publishes media, only creates drafts, supports any language, and must not be reported as scheduled. It stops short of describing validation failures or the returned snapshot shape, though that is largely covered by the output schema.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then adds constraints and the sibling handoff in four tight sentences. Slight redundancy between 'Never generates media or publishes' and 'Creates drafts only: do not report these posts as scheduled' costs a little, but nothing is wasted overall.

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 complex draft-creation tool with 30 posts and rich nested settings, the description covers the critical behavioral facts an agent needs to call it correctly, and the output schema handles return values. Minor gaps around parameter specifics do not undermine correct invocation.

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 compensation duty. It loosely maps captions, media, times, and claims onto nested fields, but never mentions title, brandId, or idempotencyKey, leaving several required parameters semantically undocumented.

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 (Save) and resource (reviewable draft campaign), and enumerates the inputs it captures (platform-specific captions, existing media, future times, sourced claims). It is clearly distinguishable from the scheduling sibling, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says when NOT to use it ('do not report these posts as scheduled') and names the alternative ('use schedule_campaign with this exact returned snapshot') with the triggering condition. The handoff contract between prepare and schedule is made unambiguous.

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