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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable specifics beyond them: previous preview links become invalid and the original expiry is unchanged. This concretely describes what gets destroyed, which the annotation alone doesn't. It doesn't cover auth, rate limits, or concurrency/conflict behavior on expectedVersion.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before behavioral notes and the workflow loop. Every sentence contributes, though the workflow sentence packs several steps densely.

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 mutation tool with destructive semantics, the description covers behavior and workflow well but leaves the parameters largely unexplained and has no output schema. It is adequate but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 only 10% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining them but does not. It only implies version semantics via 'expected version' and never explains controlToken, operationID, expectedRevision, format, state, or data. The single documented field (source) is covered by the schema, not the 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+resource ('Replaces a private draft at its expected version') and clarifies the versioning outcome (new version and preview URL). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_draft, prepare_draft, and discard_draft without needing to name them, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Provides an explicit operational workflow: call screenshot_draft on the new version, loop update_draft until the TV-distance bar clears, then publish. This tells the agent when and how to use the tool within a sequence. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a direct alternative, keeping it at a 4.

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