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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the state gate that causes rejection after commit. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but the added constraint is substantive.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the action comes first and the editing constraint second. Every clause earns its place.

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. Purpose, the required parameters, and the key failure condition are all covered; only the recovery path after a rejected edit is left implicit.

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 both parameters (id and content, including length bounds and the list_comment_drafts origin) are already fully documented. The description's 'rewrite the text' only loosely maps to the content parameter and adds nothing over the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: rewriting the text of a LinkedIn comment draft, which cleanly separates it from update_draft (generic drafts) and create_comment_draft. It stops short of naming the sibling tool an agent might confuse it with, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 a concrete precondition: only a draft still in status 'draft' can be edited, and edits are rejected once it is queued or posted. That is an explicit when-not condition, though it does not point to an alternative tool for the rejected case.

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