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

Annotations already supply the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the precondition "It must have a name" and the return value (the new character's slug), but omits what happens to the draft afterward (consumed or retained) and whether repeat calls create duplicate characters.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return value; nothing is wasted. The terseness borders on under-specification, however, since the second sentence's requirement is ambiguous about where the name must live.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description does state the return value, which is the key missing piece. It still leaves notable gaps: the draft's fate after finishing, repeat-call behavior, and failure conditions beyond the bare name requirement.

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 (draft id, campaign slug-or-id) are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail — "It must have a name" refers vaguely to draft content rather than to either argument, so there is nothing beyond the schema to credit.

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?

"Turn a draft into a character" names a specific transformation on a specific resource, and the name/title reinforce it. It stops short of distinguishing this from close siblings such as update_character_draft or start_character_draft, so the agent must infer that this is the commit/finalize step rather than another draft edit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (update_character_draft for edits, get_character_draft for inspection). The only usable hint is the implicit notion of finishing, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the verb alone.

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