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

Annotations only cover the generic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: drafting never publishes, a planned date does not schedule, and repeat calls with the same idempotency_key return the original result. The idempotency claim sits slightly awkwardly against idempotentHint=false, but that annotation describes keyless repetition, so this is context rather than a contradiction.

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, each carrying distinct payload: what a draft is, the platform constraint, the non-scheduling caveat, and retry safety. The defining behavior is front-loaded and nothing is padding.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the high-risk misconceptions (publishing, scheduling, duplicate creation on retry). It does not mention the workspace_id requirement for content creation, which the schema handles, so the gap is minor.

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 83%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks — the platform/platforms either-or requirement and the non-scheduling semantics of draft_planned_for are reinforced, and the required idempotency_key is explained behaviorally, which the schema documents only with an example and pattern.

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 ('Create a draft') and immediately defines the resource's defining behavior: 'work-in-progress content that is saved but never publishes.' That clause functionally separates it from aidelly_create_post and aidelly_create_scheduled_post without the agent needing to open their schemas.

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 real precondition ('Requires platform or a non-empty platforms array') and clarifies the trap that draft_planned_for 'is a planning date only and schedules nothing.' It does not explicitly name the sibling to use instead when the intent is to publish (create_post / create_scheduled_post), which is what keeps it out of 5 territory.

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