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

Goes well beyond the annotations by describing state-preservation semantics for each case: a review-pending draft stays pending, a scheduled message keeps its slot and goes out without re-review, a job application keeps its status. It also notes the side effect that workflow edits feed durable writing preferences, and it is consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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 core action and the key constraint, then the when-to-use, then state semantics, then the exclusion. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical about approval being 'recorded as an edit of the model's draft' is slightly heavy but still informative.

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?

Output schema covers return values, and for a mutation tool with a nested updatedContent object the description supplies the necessary behavioral context (state preservation, no approval/send, scheduled-slot behavior). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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 80%, so the schema already explains kind, confirmed, workspaceId, and updatedContent. The description's overlap ('revise a draft', 'scheduled message keeps its slot') reinforces intent but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema documents. Baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+constraint: 'Save new words on one draft without changing its approval state.' It explicitly contrasts itself with campaignstack_decide_review ('It never approves, rejects or sends'), so an agent can separate it from the sibling that handles review decisions.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('when the user asks to revise a draft for someone to sign off later, or to reword a message that is already approved and scheduled') and names the alternative tool for the approval path. Both when-to-use and when-not are stated.

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