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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real context beyond that by explaining the draft change-set workflow: nothing goes live, the owner reviews, previews, publishes, or discards it. This clarifies what the non-destructive write actually produces, though it doesn't cover auth needs or what the call returns.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the draft-only safety semantics are front-loaded right after the core action. Nothing repeats the schema or the name.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome (a draft change set awaiting owner review) and pairs well with the annotations. It stops short of describing what the caller gets back or any limits on repeat calls, but the idempotency hint is already supplied structurally.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the product_id source tools and the plain-text/no-links constraint). The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: "Propose a new description for one of your products." The product scope distinguishes it from other drafting siblings like draft_site_text or draft_translation, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 when to use it (you want a new product description) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or routing versus the drafting siblings such as draft_site_text and draft_translation. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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