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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real value beyond that: the object is a reversible Draft that can be deleted in the dashboard, it requires the user's Cotlet API key, and it is safe to run without confirmation.

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 draft-safety point is restated twice ('Nothing reaches listeners until you schedule or publish it' and again 'Nothing reaches listeners until schedule_episode or publish_episode'), and the opening 'Libsyn: New episode saved as a Draft' is a fragment. The key scoping fact is front-loaded, but there is avoidable repetition.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the draft state, reversibility, auth requirements, and publish path adequately. It does not indicate what the call returns (e.g., an episode ID for later update), which would be useful with no output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters including enums for rating and episode_type. The description echoes title and show-notes fields plus the 4,000-character Apple Podcasts limit, adding marginal value. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource+resulting state: saves a new episode as a Draft. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like schedule_episode, publish_episode, and update_episode, which the description names.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: nothing reaches listeners until schedule_episode or publish_episode, and it notes the call runs without asking. Clear context for when this is the right tool, though it does not address when to prefer update_episode over creating a fresh draft.

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