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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: it saves the previewed draft verbatim, produces an owner-private reusable template, and explicitly does not publish a page or change default styles. Idempotency is restated (already in annotations), but the non-publishing and no-default-change guarantees are genuinely new and important for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the approval precondition and the scoping constraint, then idempotency, then the non-publishing guarantee. No filler or restated name.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers precondition, idempotency, and side-effect boundaries (no publish, no style change). What is missing is error/response behavior, but annotations and the minimal schema carry most of the remaining burden.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that draftId refers to the exact preview draft and that retrying the same draftId is idempotent. The UUID format itself is only in the schema, but the semantic meaning of the id is well covered.

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 (save a template) and scopes it precisely to 'the exact preview draft', which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like preview_template, publish_page, and update_page. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Gives a clear precondition — only after the owner explicitly approves that draft — which is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a save-from-preview mutation. It does not name an alternative sibling or state an explicit when-not case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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