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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: the result is a draft (not published), and it lives in the caller's sandbox. It says nothing about required permissions, whether the slug must be unique or what happens on collision, whether the code path triggers review, or whether the call is idempotent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence where the core action comes first and the scope qualifier follows. The parenthetical is compact but slightly cryptic in its phrasing ('reviewed code tile'), costing a bit of clarity.

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 six-parameter creation tool with a nested `spec` object, two enums, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is thin. An agent still lacks guidance on populating `spec`/`code`, on slug uniqueness, on tier defaults, and on what the created object looks like.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: 'declarative spec or reviewed code tile' conveys that `spec` and `code` are the two alternative authoring payloads, matching the `authoring` enum. Nothing is said about `name`, `slug`, or `tier`, and the 'reviewed' qualifier on the code tile is ambiguous.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Create a draft calculator') with explicit scope ('in your sandbox'), which separates it from fork_calculator, update_calculator, and preview_calculator. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating the boundary explicitly, so the agent must infer that this is the new-object path.

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 by 'create a draft' and 'in your sandbox' — the agent can infer this is the entry point for authoring a new calculator rather than modifying an existing one. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative for copying an existing calculator (e.g., fork_calculator).

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