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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it is a control-plane write via POST /drafts, it returns the created row (compensating for the absent output schema), and it clarifies that live pipelines are unaffected. It does not mention auth requirements or how the empty draft is subsequently populated, and sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the 'WRITE:' marker, then purpose, endpoint, and return value in three tight clauses. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, where it sits in the API, and what it returns. Only minor gaps: no mention of what an empty draft requires next or any permission/rate considerations.

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 100% and there is only one optional 'detail' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('create a new empty draft workspace'), clarifies the domain concept ('staging area for catalog changes'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like publish_draft or upsert_draft_spec by scoping what a draft is.

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?

The phrase 'staging area for catalog changes; does not affect live pipelines' implies when to reach for a draft rather than a live operation, but it names no alternatives (e.g., publish_draft to apply changes) and states no prerequisites or exclusions.

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