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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that this is a full replacement (no partial patches), that the version increments, that previews are invalidated, and that a specific error code (CLAIMED) is returned once the draft is claimed in the editor. These are exactly the side effects and failure modes an agent needs before mutating.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the core action and its consequences lead, with the failure condition last. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, side effects, validation parity, and the key error path. It does not say what the call returns (e.g. new version identifier or rejected-preview state), which is the only notable gap.

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 (design as full DesignDocumentV3, designId as the dsg_ id from create_design). The description reinforces the no-partial-patch constraint but adds no syntax or format 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 precise verb and resource: replace a draft's design with a full DesignDocumentV3. It also positions itself relative to a sibling by referencing create_design's validation, so an agent can tell it apart from the create path without opening either schema.

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 CLAIMED failure clause functions as an explicit when-not condition (do not call after the customer has claimed the draft), and 'Same validation as create_design' points at the sibling. It stops short of naming create_design as the alternative for new drafts, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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