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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-structured lifecycle context: the result is an inactive draft, it does not take effect until publication, and routing uses project routing rules. This is real behavioral value beyond 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result state. No filler; the inbox-binding and publication facts each carry distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and lifecycle/routing are covered. But for a tool with a deeply nested config and low schema coverage, the description omits how the sectionTypes/instructions config should be shaped, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 only 25% and there are 4 params (one deeply nested with ~8 sub-fields). The description explains sourceInboxId (null vs inbox binding) usefully, but leaves mode, instructions, sectionTypes, maxSegments, thresholds, and config structure undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation for a large gap.

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 and resource ('Creates an inactive logical splitter draft') with a clear scope qualifier ('for mixed PDF attachments'). This distinguishes it from sibling splitters.create_page_range, which handles page-range splitting rather than logical section splitting.

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 useful context: sourceInboxId binding vs null for project uploads, project routing rules, and that the draft only activates after publication. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over create_page_range or update_logical, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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