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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing specific validation rules ('draft carrying an unfilled placeholder or a broken link is refused'), safety behavior ('previous draft is kept as revision history'), and access requirements ('requires the 'act' scope and Founder tier'). These are valuable operational details not encoded in the annotations.

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 description is three sentences: the first sentence states the core purpose and timing, the second clarifies manual-only behavior, and the third provides validation/versioning details plus access requirements. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter write tool, the description covers the action, prerequisites, validation failures, and revision history. It lacks an explicit statement about success response, but given no output schema and straightforward operation, this is a minor gap. Overall, the description is fairly complete.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no new parameter-specific semantics; it only restates that the draft is a replacement body, which is already in the schema. Thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Replace ... body'), the target resource ('drafted marketing output'), and a clear condition ('before it is shipped'). It also distinguishes the tool from AI redrafting by explicitly saying 'Manual replacement only: the AI redraft stays in the app.'

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 clear usage context: use this when you want to manually replace a draft before shipping. It also excludes AI-driven redrafting ('Manual replacement only'), but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool in favor of another.

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