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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key side effect: the entry is saved as a draft for human approval unless auto-publish is enabled. It also imposes content constraints (first person, real commits, no invented numbers). It stops short of covering ownership/auth requirements or what happens on invalid input.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by content guidance and then the draft/auto-publish consequence. There is little waste, though the middle content rules could be slightly compressed.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what to write, what source to base it on, and what happens after submission. It leaves gaps around ownership/verification, return value, and slug identification, but the core calling context is present.

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 coverage is only 50%: body has a short description and slug has none. The description adds real detail about what body should contain (what shipped, what broke, cost, first person, no invented numbers), but it never clarifies the slug parameter's meaning or format beyond the vague phrase 'for one of the builder's builds'.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource — drafting a build-log entry for one of the builder's builds — and the title reinforces that it is a draft post rather than a build record. It implicitly separates itself from create_build/update_build by describing a log entry, but never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

The description implies the situation (after something shipped or broke, based on real commits/changelog) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or alternative-tool guidance. The note about draft-vs-auto-publish is useful context but is not a selection rule.

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