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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it explicitly says values are 'overwritten,' and it discloses return values (updated state, remaining missing fields, resumeUrl). It does not contradict the idempotentHint=true or destructiveHint=false annotations.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that covers what the tool does, what it operates on, and what it returns. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter tool with rich schema descriptions, the description covers the operation, the identifying token, and the return payload. Lacking an output schema, the return-value summary is especially helpful. The main omission is explicit guidance on choosing between this and sibling tools, but that is a secondary 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents resumeToken and the fields array in detail with examples and constraints. The description adds only the overwrite semantics and result context, which is useful but not necessary for parameter understanding.

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 action ('Adds or overwrites field values') on a specific resource ('an existing draft') identified by its resumeToken. This clearly distinguishes it from create_draft (which creates a new draft) and get_draft (which reads state).

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 implies this is for an existing draft started elsewhere, so the agent can infer it is used after create_draft rather than instead of it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or why it would be preferred over get_draft.

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