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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the result is editable, partial input is accepted, and no subscription is charged, nothing is published, and no customer email is sent. It stops short of saying what happens on repeated calls or what the draft's lifecycle states are.

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 the core action front-loaded and the strongest reassurance (no subscription/publication/email) placed last. The final sentence is telegraphic to the point of being fragmentary, but nothing is wasted.

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 write with annotations but no output schema, the description covers preconditions and side effects but omits what the call returns, which matters because creating a draft is only useful if the agent learns the draft identifier for a later save_store_draft. The unexplained site_kind enum compounds the 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 0% and both parameters are required, yet the description explains neither. 'Attached to an existing website' loosely hints that site_id must reference an existing site, but the site_kind enum values (free/project/offer) are left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Create an editable draft') and scopes it to 'an existing website', so an agent knows this is a draft-creation operation rather than a live-publish step. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling (create_booking_draft) or explain the store-vs-booking distinction beyond the tool name.

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?

'Optional detail never blocks drafting' implies a create-then-fill workflow (follow with save_store_draft), but the alternative tools and the condition choosing between them are only implied. The absence of subscription/publication requirements is stated as a condition, which is useful, but there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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