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

No contradiction with annotations: 'Save' aligns with readOnlyHint=false, and draft-saving matches destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true. Adds value beyond annotations by disclosing 'private draft' visibility, the revision-read precondition, and the owner/admin publishing boundary. Doesn't state what happens to an existing draft (overwrite vs append), but idempotency is already flagged in annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core purpose first, then prerequisite, content-quality guideline, and permission boundary. No fluff, no repetition of schema or annotation data. Ideal front-loading for an agent scanning quickly.

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?

Covers purpose, precondition, content quality, and permission. But with no output schema, the return behavior is unstated, and the `application` parameter meaning is absent. The nested draft structure is reasonably left to schema. For a 4-required-param tool without an output schema, some return-value guidance would round it out.

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 25% (context is the sole described param). The description maps 'listing copy' to the draft object's name/tagline/description fields, 'image IDs' to iconAssetId and screenshots[].assetId, and references the revision param. But the `application` parameter is left unexplained in both schema and description, and draft field details are deferred to the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Save listing copy and selected image IDs to a private draft.' The 'private draft' phrase clearly differentiates from presentation.upload and presentation.get siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast those siblings, 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?

Provides execution context: 'Read the revision first' establishes a prerequisite, and 'Use factual copy and real, reviewed screenshots' sets content-quality expectations. But it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance (e.g., when to pick this over presentation.upload), so the routing burden is left to the agent.

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