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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful workflow context beyond that: a revision check (optimistic concurrency) and that any change resets campaign review/approval. It does not explain what the destructive aspect actually discards (prior approval, scheduled slot, media) or how idempotencyKey interacts with retries.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the edit scope and followed by the key constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 a high-complexity mutation tool (11 params, nested settings object, optimistic-concurrency revision, idempotency key). An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 0% schema coverage the description leaves most inputs and the settings object entirely undocumented.

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 must carry the parameter burden, and it only gestures at three concepts (caption→content, media→mediaAssetId(s), publishing time→scheduledAt). It says nothing about revision, idempotencyKey, brandId/campaignId/connectionId, or the large nested settings object with ~30 platform-specific fields.

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 names a specific verb (Edit) and resource (a campaign draft's caption, media or publishing time), which clearly separates it from generic draft tools. It does not name any sibling (e.g., update_draft, schedule_campaign, schedule_post) to route the agent explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 rather than stated: 'campaign draft' narrows the context versus update_draft, and the revision/approval note hints at prerequisites. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no alternative tool is named for the non-campaign or non-draft case.

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