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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true): it states nothing is published, that no one sees the draft, that a draft is removed with one call (reversibility), that it runs without asking first, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. That is exactly the safety, reversibility and auth context an agent needs before invoking.

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 essential fact ('Save a new post as a draft') and the rest is short sentences. It is slightly repetitive, restating the draft/nobody-sees-it idea three ways, which costs a point but does not bury the key information.

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 output schema and a fully documented schema, the description covers the remaining gaps: safety profile, reversibility, visibility, sibling routing and authentication. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents title, body, audience (with enum) and tier_ids. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as audience/tier interaction, so 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 specific verb and resource ('Save a new post as a draft') and immediately disambiguates from the publish/schedule siblings. An agent can tell this creates a non-visible draft versus patreon_publish_post or patreon_schedule_post without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Nobody sees it until publish_post or schedule_post,' which names the alternative tools and the condition under which to reach for them. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. 'use publish_post instead if the post should go live now'), but the context is clear.

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