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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false), yet the description adds substantial context the annotations don't: it is a mutation that creates/overwrites a per-page+field draft but does not publish, it consumes an AI-gateway operation in specific cases, and it requires an org admin. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs beyond the structured hints.

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 verb and scope, and every sentence carries load (cost, mutation, alternative, auth). It is dense and somewhat run-on with heavy parenthetical nesting, which slightly hurts scanability but wastes no words.

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, the description still covers everything an agent needs to call this correctly: what it creates, that it isn't published, the cost model, the auth requirement, and the sibling to use instead. Nothing material is missing for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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%, and the schema already documents value, issueType, pageUrl and projectId in detail, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying value to cost (skips the AI operation) and to the free deterministic canonical/redirect cases, which the schema only partially conveys.

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 (drafts) and resource (a title/metaDescription/canonical/redirect fix for one page's finding), naming the exact issue classes it covers. It explicitly distinguishes itself from publish_patch and implies the batch alternative, so an agent can tell what it does and doesn't do without opening any schema.

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?

Provides explicit when/when-not and routing: use publish_patch to publish, and use value when an explicit replacement is needed instead of AI drafting. It also names conditions that change cost (canonical/redirect free, title/metaDescription cost unless value given), giving the agent decision-relevant guidance.

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