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

With only openWorldHint=false in annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses mutation behavior, deep-merge semantics, array replacement, null-clearing, config replacement for key removal, expectedVersion conflicts, 409 response recovery, and the non-publishing default. This goes well beyond the minimal annotation coverage.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries functional weight. It front-loads the central merge semantics, then covers removal, data replacement, versioning, and publishing without repetition. The structure is efficient for a tool with this many behavioral nuances.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the key parameters, conflict handling, publishing behavior, and even preview output, leaving no critical gap an agent would need to resolve before invoking the tool correctly.

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 44%, so the description must supply meaning, and it does. It explains that configPatch is deep-merged, config replaces the whole config and is the way to remove keys, data replaces rows wholesale, expectedVersion comes from the last envelope, and publish triggers publishing in the same call. These clarifications add real operational meaning beyond the raw 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?

The title and description state a clear verb ('Update a draft') and resource, plus the two distinct modes (deep-merge patch vs. replace config). It also signals a concrete result ('returns an inline preview image'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like publish_asset or update_brand.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use configPatch for deep-merging, config to remove keys, and data to replace rows wholesale. It also directs the agent to pass publish: true or call publish_asset separately, and explains expectedVersion handling and 409 recovery, so an agent knows exactly how to select and sequence this tool.

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