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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by naming the concrete side effects (archives the original draft, revokes its preview) and stating it never publishes. It does not mention that archive/revoke are irreversible or repeat-call implications for non-idempotency.

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?

Three dense sentences that front-load the trigger and follow with the transformation and guard clause; minimal waste. The opener 'Use this when managing post auto-signatures' is somewhat generic filler relative to the specificity that follows.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the missing preconditions and side effects. The only gap is the undocumented 'title' parameter.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It explains 'default' (assign as account default) and 'channelIds' (owner-bound), and draftId is self-evident, but the 'title' parameter is never mentioned in either schema or 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States a specific verb (convert) plus resource (unpublished inactive draft → reusable auto-signature) and enumerates the side effects (archive draft, revoke preview). An agent can distinguish it from create_signature and archive_post from the description alone.

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 precondition — the source must be an unpublished inactive draft — and clarifies it 'Never publishes,' which steers the agent away from publish_post. It does not explicitly name the alternatives (create_signature, archive_post) for the case where no draft exists, so it stops short of a 5.

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