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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful boundaries beyond them: it never marks the play done and never publishes anything, bounding the side effects. It does not address what happens on resubmission despite idempotentHint=true, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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 tight sentences: what/where it saves, when to use it, and what it explicitly does not do. The action and destination are front-loaded with zero 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?

With no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough for correct invocation: destination, state, accepted content types and side-effect limits. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying whether a resubmit replaces or adds an entry.

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 baseline is 3. The description loosely maps the kind enum (copy, code, research) and notes the deliverable is markdown, but adds no format or syntax detail the schema does not already carry.

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 (Save/submit), the resource (the finished work for one play), the destination (founder's gtm.help board) and the resulting state (Ready to review). The phrase 'never marks the play done' also separates it from complete_play and update_play_status.

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?

'Use this whenever you have written the work for a play, instead of leaving it only in chat' gives a clear triggering condition and contrasts with the wrong behavior (chat-only). It stops short of naming the sibling tools it supersedes (complete_play, update_play_status) as explicit alternatives.

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