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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a genuinely useful trait not in the annotations ('Drafts never publish'), reassuring the agent that this staging object cannot affect live content. However, it omits critical update semantics such as whether this is a partial merge or full replacement, and why the operation is flagged destructive, so it only partially earns credit over the 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?

Two tightly written clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the single non-obvious parameter behavior. No filler, though it could carry one more sentence of update semantics at little cost.

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?

There is no output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. But for an 11-parameter mutation with nested body/query overrides and two required fields, the description is thin on partial-vs-full update semantics, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.

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 73%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description adds one meaningful clarification ('set draft_planned_for to null to clear the planned date') that goes beyond the schema's note, but says nothing about the update behavior of the other 10 parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the moderate coverage.

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 ('Update a draft') that clearly separates it from create_draft, delete_draft, and get_draft siblings. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the mutation verb makes the intent unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus create_draft, update_scheduled_post, or update_post, and no prerequisites or conditions. The only operational hint is the null-clearing behavior for one parameter, which is not usage guidance in the when/when-not sense.

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