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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint, so the bar is low; the description adds real behavior: the draft starts empty, it is a staging area, and it does not affect live pipelines. The stated non-impact on production sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true, but the description itself is behaviorally informative.

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 short sentences with the write semantics front-loaded and no filler. The 'Estuary control-plane: POST /drafts' line is implementation detail of limited value to an agent choosing a tool, a minor inefficiency.

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, the description helpfully states 'Returns the created row,' and for a one-optional-parameter creation tool that is nearly everything an agent needs. Only the relationship to publish/upsert siblings remains unaddressed.

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% for the single optional 'detail' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (create) plus resource (a new empty draft workspace) with scope clarified as a staging area for catalog changes. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as list_drafts, publish_draft, and upsert_draft_spec.

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 description gives useful context (staging area for catalog changes, does not affect live pipelines) that implies when to reach for it, but it never states when to use this versus publish_draft or upsert_draft_spec, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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