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

The annotations are minimal (no read-only or destructive hints, no idempotency), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the result is an unchanged copy, recorded as a duplicate, created as a DRAFT, and requires specific permissions. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every sentence conveys distinct useful information: purpose, when to use, draft state, return format, and permissions. No filler or redundancy.

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 create-type tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: what is created, its state, how the result is identified, permission requirements, and how it relates to the publish/view workflow. Nothing critical is missing.

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 all four parameters. The description adds some context about the 'omit' parameter and the response envelope, but does not substantially expand parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new Riddle from a template as an unchanged copy of it', and explicitly distinguishes it from riddle_template_get and riddle_builder_create. This makes its purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('whenever the template is what you want') and when not to, directing the agent to riddle_template_get plus riddle_builder_create for adaptations. It also notes the draft/publish flow, which is essential usage context.

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