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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is already known; the description adds the queue-based/team-check processing model, which is genuinely new context. It does not say what existing drafts are overwritten when a rewrite happens, nor whether the rewrite is async and how the agent learns it finished — important gaps for a destructive operation.

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 core action, with zero filler. Efficiency is good, though the same brevity is what leaves the parameter behavior undocumented.

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?

A destructive, queue-enqueuing tool with a nested nine-field body, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needs substantially more than two sentences. An agent cannot tell how to scope a rewrite (single entity vs. whole campaign vs. multiple campaign_ids) or what the response will contain.

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 0% on a nested body with nine properties (campaign_id, database, entity_id, email_index, template_id, user_emails, campaign_ids, include_edited, rewrite_stages), so the description carries the full burden. It only indirectly gestures at template_id via 'apply a template' and says nothing about campaign scoping, stage selection, or edited-draft inclusion.

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?

Clear verb+resource: it rewrites saved pitches and can apply a template, which distinguishes it from edit_pitch_draft (single edit) and generate_pitch_drafts at a high level. It also explicitly excludes sending, ruling out send_pitch. However, it never names the two closest siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 negative guidance 'Does not send emails' is useful for ruling out send_pitch, but there is no positive 'use this when X instead of generate_pitch_drafts/edit_pitch_draft' statement. The mention of 'existing generation queue and team checks' hints at prerequisites but doesn't state them as conditions for use.

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