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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuine, non-obvious failure mode: large content can be truncated by response length, producing incomplete arguments and a validation error. It omits other behavioral facts such as persistence (set_artifact_persistent) and revision/created_by semantics, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the pitfall, then the remediation path. Tight and purposeful, though the parenthetical about the validation error could be trimmed slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents all four parameters. For an annotation-free create tool, the description adds the one thing an agent could not infer: the size/truncation constraint and the correct incremental-write strategy.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by adding operational meaning to the content parameter (keep it short, grow incrementally) that the schema's bare 'Начальное содержимое черновика' does not convey. It says nothing extra about title or created_by, which the schema already documents.

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 and resource ('Создать артефакт и начальный черновик'), which is clear and distinct from read/modify siblings like read_artifact or overwrite_artifact. It does not, however, distinguish artifact creation from create_article, the other creation tool in the sibling set.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the correct workflow: create with a short skeleton content, then grow content via replace_range_in_artifact (append) or overwrite_artifact. It names the alternatives and the condition that selects them, though it never says when not to create an artifact at all (e.g. vs. create_article).

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