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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the login requirement, the optimistic-lock/409 conflict behavior on concurrent edits, that null clears a field, that times are Shanghai-localized ISO, and a fabrication guardrail. These are exactly the auth, concurrency, and mutation traits the annotations (readOnly/destructive/idempotent) cannot convey.

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?

A dense semicolon-delimited block with no filler; every clause (auth, key semantics, workflow, conflict, guardrails) earns its place. It is packed and could be broken into clearer sentences, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, the read-modify-publish sequence, concurrency recovery, field-path semantics, and data-integrity guardrails. An agent has everything needed 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: set keys are field paths, null clears values, and times require Shanghai ISO conversion. The version param's conflict role is reinforced, going beyond the schema's wording.

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 title (办活动：改草稿) and description make clear this edits an activity draft, and the set-key semantics ('set键为activity/letter字段路径') sharpen what is being modified. It is clearly distinct from siblings like update_activity (published) and update_activity_letter, though it does not state that distinction outright.

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 prescribes the exact workflow: get_activity_draft to read version, then update, then call publish_activity_draft only when 'missing' is empty. It names alternatives and the 409 re-read path, so an agent knows precisely when to call this vs. the neighbors.

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