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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the output is a non-public draft and that content can originate from an external page fetch, which explains the open-world hint in practical terms. It stops short of noting permissions or what happens on repeated calls with the same slug.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the draft state constraint. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 should say what a successful call returns (e.g. a draft identifier) so an agent can chain into publish_document or update_document. It also leaves the markdown/source_url requirement implicit for a tool where nothing is marked required.

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 71%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds one genuinely useful semantic the schema lacks: source_url is an alternative to markdown ('instead of markdown'). But it says nothing about title, description, site, or lang, nor that all 7 parameters are optional while at least one content source is presumably needed.

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 (creates a draft Markdown document in Content Studio) plus the two input modes: raw Markdown text or conversion from source_url. The draft-versus-published state is made explicit against publish_document, though it does not differentiate itself from siblings like generate_document or update_document.

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 line 'Drafts are not public until publish_document' implies the create-then-publish workflow, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over generate_document or update_document, and no statement of prerequisites (site resolution, auth, one-of markdown/source_url).

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