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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a draft object is returned and that a saved frame can seed a blank sheet, but it never says whether a new draft replaces an existing one, whether campaign membership is required, or how the draft lifecycle continues into finish_character_draft.

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 segments with no filler, and the mode distinction is front-loaded ahead of the return note. Some phrasing is overly compressed ("the creator", "a frame the table keeps"), which costs clarity even though it saves words.

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 non-destructive creation tool with a nested `frame` object and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials (modes, return value) but omits prerequisites, draft-lifecycle handoff, and any limits on how many drafts may exist. Adequate, not complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and the blank-only restriction on `frame`. The description adds modest meaning by explaining what guided versus blank actually mean, but `campaign` and the frame's structure are left entirely to the schema, keeping this near baseline.

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 says "Open the creator" and names two modes, but the verb is metaphorical and never states plainly that this creates a new character draft (that comes only from the name/title). It also does nothing to separate this from close siblings like create_custom_character, finish_character_draft, or update_character_draft.

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?

It gives real selection guidance between the two modes: `guided` for "the usual questions" versus `blank` to design the sheet yourself, plus the condition that `frame` only applies to the blank path. What's missing is any routing advice versus alternative tools or a statement of when not to start a draft.

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