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

The description goes beyond the annotations by specifying that the destructive behavior is 'replace a selected private draft' and that publishing is not performed. This directly tells the agent what side effect could occur and what will not happen. It does not explain confirmation_token or idempotency behavior, but the core destructive interaction is disclosed.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose, then adds the key refinement about optional draft replacement and non-publishing. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundancy with the title or schema.

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?

Given 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and a destructiveHint, this description is too thin for safe invocation. It does not explain mandatory parameters, how to identify the draft to replace, or optional parameters such as cta_type, template_type, confirmation_token, and idempotency_key. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but input-side ambiguity remains significant.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parametermantics burden. It gestures at 'private product brief' and 'selected private draft', which loosely map to product_name/one_liner and project_id/landing_project_id, but it never explicitly explains any of the 8 parameters, defaults like cta_type/template_type, or the purpose of confirmation_token/idempotency_key. The agent is left to infer most parameter behavior from names alone.

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: 'Generate structured landing-page copy' from a 'private product brief', and further clarifies that it can 'optionally replace a selected private draft without publishing it.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like landing.publish and landing.create_project, which handle different stages of the landing-page workflow.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need landing-page copy generated from a private brief, and possibly to replace a draft without publishing. It explicitly excludes publishing behavior, which helps separate it from landing.publish. However, it does not name alternative tools or state explicit 'when-not-to-use' conditions.

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