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

Annotations are generic false flags, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important non-activated behavior, the need to poll a builder run, and the possibility of answering questions. This goes meaningfully beyond the structured annotations even though it omits explicit output/return details.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, the follow-up workflow, and a critical safety boundary. Every sentence earns its place and the most important constraint, 'never activates the revision,' is clearly stated at the end.

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?

The description covers the main workflow: generating into a saved draft, polling the builder run, handling questions, and accepting/declining. There is no output schema, but the phrase 'Poll the returned builder run' signals what the caller should expect. It could be more explicit about return payloads, but it is complete enough for a complex async generation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all eight parameters. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the overall workflow, but it also does not need to because the schema descriptions are adequate.

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 action and resource: generating agent instructions or code into a saved draft. It also distinguishes itself from activation tools by explicitly saying 'This never activates the revision,' making its role clear among many revision-related siblings.

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 for how and when to use the tool: generate into a saved draft, poll the returned builder run, answer questions if requested, then accept or decline the checkpoint. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the workflow guidance is strong enough for an agent to follow correctly.

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