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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: nothing goes live, the text is stored as a draft change set, and the owner reviews, previews, publishes or discards it. It does not address the non-idempotent hint (e.g. whether repeated calls stack multiple drafts), which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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 action front-loaded and the safety reassurance immediately after. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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, non-destructive draft tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and the human review step. It could be slightly more complete by noting what the call returns (e.g. a draft identifier) or how repeated calls behave, but 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 both parameters are already documented, including the source of product_id and the plain-text/no-links constraint on description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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 ('Propose') and resource ('a new description for one of your products'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like draft_site_text or draft_translation by the resource named. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 the resource ('one of your products') and the draft workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to the sibling tools that handle site text or translations. An agent can infer the context but must do the routing itself.

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