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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the revision-check precondition and the downstream consequence that any change invalidates prior approval and requires re-review. It does not explain how mediaAssetId vs mediaAssetIds interact or what the revision value must match.

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 tight sentences with the editable scope front-loaded ahead of the review-consequence clause. No filler, though the workflow sentence could be marginally denser.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the workflow/review consequence is well covered. The gap is on the input side: with 11 parameters and zero schema descriptions, an agent still lacks guidance on revision semantics, idempotencyKey behavior, and the settings object.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 11 parameters (5 required, nested settings object), the description carries the full parameter burden. It loosely maps three editable concepts to fields but leaves brandId, campaignId, postId, revision, idempotencyKey, connectionId, and the entire settings object 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 ('Edit') and enumerates the editable surface (caption, media, publishing time) for a campaign draft post. It is distinguishable from plain 'update_draft' by the campaign/post scoping, though it never names the sibling it differs from.

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?

Conveys the workflow condition — edits are gated by a revision check and force a fresh campaign review/approval. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over update_draft, update_post, or update_campaign_generator_automation, leaving routing to inference.

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