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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety semantics are covered. The description adds only the mild context that the target is a 'draft' strategy; it does not state whether regeneration overwrites prior output, whether approval is required first, or what a repeat call produces despite the non-idempotent hint.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the core action stated first and the section glossary after it. The parenthetical glosses add length but each earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and section meaning but omits governance context: whether it works only on unapproved drafts, whether feedback is free-form, and whether existing content is lost. The missing 'rationale' entry in the section list is a further completeness gap.

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 the schema carries the parameter documentation and baseline 3 applies. The description goes beyond it by translating opaque enum values into plain language (channelMix = 'where to post', cadence = 'how often', calendarSkeleton = 'the week-by-week calendar'), which materially helps the agent pick the right section.

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 ('Regenerates one section of a draft strategy') and enumerates the section values with short glosses, which clearly differentiates it from generate_strategy. However, the enumeration lists only seven sections while the enum includes eight ('rationale' is missing), leaving a small ambiguity about what is actually regenerable.

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?

Usage is implied by 'draft strategy' and 'steered by feedback', so an agent can infer this is for revising an existing draft. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. generate_strategy or regenerate_brand_guide_section, and no stated prerequisite (e.g. the strategy must exist and not be approved).

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