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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely non-annotation detail: the state constraint that approved briefs are uneditable. It stops short of explaining partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared), which matters for a tool flagged destructive.

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, nothing wasted: purpose and scope first, then the state restriction. Front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers purpose, scope, and the approval gate, but omits patch semantics for a 6-parameter update and gives no meaning for individual fields.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does enumerate the mutable fields, mapping 'target questions' to target_queries and naming title/topic/intent/outline. It provides no per-field semantics (array replace-vs-append behavior, length or ordering constraints), so the compensation is partial.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('a draft brief') and enumerates the editable fields (title, topic, intent, target questions, outline). The phrase 'before it is approved' cleanly separates it from siblings approve_brief, create_brief, and get_brief.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('before it is approved') and an explicit when-not ('An approved brief cannot be edited'), plus a redirect ('edit its draft article in the app instead'). The redirect points outside the toolset rather than to a sibling tool, so it is clear context and exclusions without a named tool alternative.

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