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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it states draft-only scope, separate administrative save authorization, what is not changed, the return values, idempotency rules for identical retries, conflict behavior for changed arguments, and reconciliation for ambiguous pending operations.

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?

The description is dense but front-loads the core action and prerequisites, and every sentence contributes a constraint or behavioral rule. It is appropriately sized for a complex save tool, though some clauses are packed and could be split for readability.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, six required parameters, and a nested payload, the description covers most critical context: authorization, draft-only scope, preconditions, parameter constraints, return values, and retry semantics. The undocumented token parameter is the main missing piece.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it thoroughly documents slug, expected_version, section_revision, request_id, and the nested payload shape with constraints. The required token parameter is never mentioned, leaving a notable gap.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Save DRAFT ONLY a materials section' and explicitly differentiates from publishing ('Does not ... publish other content'), making it clear this is a draft save, not a publish or get operation.

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?

It gives preconditions ('Read online_material_sections_get first') and distinguishes new vs existing section via section_revision, plus explicit exclusions ('Does not create/change a public tag, change any article, or publish other content'). It stops short of naming online_material_section_publish as the alternative when publishing is intended.

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