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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond them: it 'places everything and saves' and 'returns at once,' disclosing the async/fire-and-poll nature. It still doesn't say what existing tour content gets overwritten, but the rework/save framing partly covers that.

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?

Core action is front-loaded, followed by the content enumeration and the wait_for_tour handoff. The long parenthetical list is dense but each item conveys a genuine capability, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains that it returns immediately and points to wait_for_tour for completion. Safety traits are covered by annotations, so the remaining coverage is adequate for a 2-parameter async drafting 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 coverage is only 50% — tour_id is documented but request is not. The description compensates by describing what a plain request can express (stops, text, clues, models, effects, sound, music, looks, skies), giving real meaning to the request parameter beyond the schema.

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 ('write or rework the tour from a plain request') and enumerates the content it can produce. It reads distinctly from create_tour/save_tour, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 next-step instruction ('Returns at once; then call wait_for_tour'), which is the key sequencing guidance for an async tool. However, it offers no when-not condition and does not name create_tour or save_tour as alternatives for when drafting is the wrong choice.

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