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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, open-world, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds valuable preconditions: the draft id must be positive, and canceling an ended or activated draft is refused, though it does not describe the resulting state change or reversibility.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraints. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 simple single-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main preconditions and refusal behavior. It only omits explicit after-cancel or return behavior, which is a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description repeats the positive constraint already encoded by the schema's minimum of 1, but adds no provenance, format, or discovery guidance to compensate for the missing schema description.

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 ('Cancel your pending world draft') and scopes it to the pending/pre-activation state, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like draft_world and world_status.

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 explicit when (pending draft before activation) and when-not (ended or activated drafts are refused) conditions, but does not name any alternative sibling tool for related actions.

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