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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable consequences: previous preview links are invalidated, the original expiry carries over, and the write is version-guarded. It omits permission/controlToken requirements and failure behavior on version conflict.

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 operation and followed by the two side effects that matter. 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 10-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers versioning and side effects but leaves concurrency-token requirements, parameter meanings, and error semantics unstated. Adequate as a headline, insufficient as the only prose an agent has for this tool.

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?

Ten parameters at 10% schema coverage, and the description explains almost none of them. Nothing clarifies the difference between expectedVersion and expectedRevision, what draftID/operationID/controlToken are for, or how title/format/state/data are applied. With this coverage gap the description has to compensate and largely doesn't; the source field's rich guidance lives in the schema, not here.

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 ('Replaces a private draft') plus two concrete outcomes (new version, preview URL), and the word 'private' scopes it. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like publish_draft or discard_draft, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite a crowded sibling set (prepare_draft, read_draft, publish_draft, discard_draft) where the choice between them matters. The agent must infer that this is the edit-in-place path rather than a create or publish path.

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