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

Annotations declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds real context beyond them: gap-filling idempotency that leaves decided drafts untouched, the destructive semantics of force, the slot-scoping side effects, and a cost warning ('SLOW: each draft is 1-3 LLM calls'). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action, then escalating detail on idempotency, force, slot_index, and cost. Four dense sentences, all earning their place, though the density slightly hurts scannability.

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 destructive, non-read-only, SLOW tool with no output schema, the description covers safety, idempotency, cost, and scoping well. It omits return shape and failure handling, but those are secondary given the annotations already signal mutation.

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 already 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by explaining force ('wipes today's PENDING drafts first'), slot_index ('targets ONE slot of a configured asset flow', with named flow types), and the idempotent re-run behavior. It does not clarify handle or beat_slug beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Run the daily draft engine now: generates today's pending drafts for the active flow') and scopes it precisely. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like regenerate_draft and list_drafts by defining exactly what gets generated and when.

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 explains clear contexts: run for the day's drafts, use force to wipe today's pending drafts first, and use slot_index to re-fire one failed slot 'without regenerating the day'. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g. regenerate_draft) or stating when NOT to call it.

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