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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real weight and adds non-obvious behavior: the result is PRIVATE+DRAFT, nothing is persisted, published, or sent. It also discloses the 20MiB cap and supported file types. It does not explain what happens on unsupported formats or oversize input, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the input restriction, then the output state, then format/size limits. No filler; each clause conveys a distinct constraint.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers what matters most: input form, output state, side-effect posture, format and size limits. The gap is the undocumented optional `message` parameter, but otherwise an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains base64 (file bytes) and the 20MiB limit consistent with maxLength 27962028, but it never mentions the optional `message` parameter or the fileName constraints (1-180 chars), leaving one of three parameters entirely undocumented.

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?

The description states the operation concretely: it ingests user-provided file bytes and returns a PRIVATE+DRAFT with a source record for the user to check. The verb/resource pair lives mostly in the name and title, but the description still makes the outcome ('returns a draft, does not save the plan') unambiguous, which separates it from write-oriented siblings like save_cooperation_plan or kickoff_cooperation.

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?

It clearly states the input-source boundary ('only user-provided file bytes, no server paths or URLs'), which functions as a when/when-not rule that prevents a common misuse. It also implicitly contrasts with tools that persist results ('no save, no publish, no send'). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative for users who want to commit a plan, so it is not a 5.

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