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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the workflow context that a draft is for review prior to publishing, but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether drafts are private, or what happens to the record on repeated calls.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the action and resource, with no redundant filler. The parenthetical is compact and carries real workflow information rather than padding.

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 3-parameter creation tool with annotations covering the write profile, the description is adequate but thin. With no output schema, it could usefully state what the call returns (e.g., a draft identifier) or whether the draft can later be published or updated, neither of which is addressed.

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 title, body_markdown, and tags are already documented in the schema with constraints (minLength, required). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Save an article as a draft') and names the target service, so an agent can distinguish it from publish_article or update_article. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, leaving the differentiation implied by the parenthetical.

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 parenthetical '(for review before publishing)' implies the workflow context — you create a draft when you want review before going live — which is useful guidance. However, it never names publish_article or update_article as the follow-up/alternative, nor states any preconditions, so the routing is only implied.

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