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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds key behavioral facts: the original is untouched, no sending occurs until send_draft is called, and payment requirements carry over. This goes beyond what annotations state.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the core action, the recommended use case, and cost/side-effect notes. The most important information is front-loaded, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main effect and side effects well. However, it does not state what the function returns (e.g., the new draft's ID or object), which is important for an agent to reference the copy afterward. This gap is notable given no output schema to fill it.

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 all parameters (name, userId, draftId) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance it.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Copy a draft into a new draft, leaving the original untouched.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling duplicate tools for other resources (document, link, template) by naming the resource type explicitly.

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 description provides a use case ('Useful for building several similar documents from one prepared starting point') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like create_draft or duplicate_document. Guidance is present but limited.

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