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

It usefully discloses token cost ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'), that an XBOSS task is created per request, and that the call is not purely read-only, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. However, the trailing Korean boilerplate about '기관 원본' and institutional data changes is copied from an unrelated tool and gives no guidance on what this mutation actually affects; it also never explains why destructiveHint is true when nothing is published.

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?

The English opening is front-loaded and tight, but the trailing Korean sentences about token consumption, XBOSS tasks, and institutional data are generic boilerplate that is not about this Tistory tool and dilutes the useful content. Roughly half the text does not earn its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be described, and the create-empty-vs-create-with-content behavior is covered. Gaps remain: it never clarifies the destructiveHint=true surface (whether re-calling creates duplicates, whether drafts can be discarded by this tool) and the mismatched institutional-data boilerplate adds confusion rather than completeness.

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 nested document fields and account_link_id fallback are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the pass-or-omit semantics for the optional document parameter, which is a modest value-add over the structured fields.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new post draft in the connected Tistory blog') and immediately distinguishes itself from the publish sibling ('Nothing is published - the final publish is done by the customer in Tistory'). An agent can tell create-draft apart from tistory__retired_openapi__publish without opening either schema.

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 gives explicit conditional usage ('Pass document to save content into the new draft in the same step, or omit it to create an empty draft') and a prerequisite ('Connect the Tistory blog first'), plus a hand-off to the publish tool. It does not say how this differs from sibling tistory__retired_openapi__update or why one would stage content via tistory__content__stage first, which the schema references.

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