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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond these: the failure mode (guide won't advance, returns prompts/messages), and the manual-override for step 7. Does not discuss side effects of advancing (e.g. what state changes), which keeps it from a 5 given the low annotation bar.

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 action, then conditions, alternatives, and return values in a logical order. Slightly long but every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description names the return values (moved, from_step, snapshot), covers the failure response shape, and clarifies the manual step-7 boundary. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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% for the single draft_id parameter, and the schema description already explains its origin (list_drafts) and the account-ownership constraint. The tool description adds no parameter detail, so the 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 ('Trycker på Nästa i webbguiden' – presses Next in the web guide) and clarifies it mimics the user's own action with the same controls. It distinguishes itself from siblings go_to_step (backwards navigation) and answer_prompt (handling missing answers) explicitly.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('när allt i aktuellt steg är ifyllt och granskat'), when-not (guide won't proceed if something is missing or a question must be answered), and routes to the correct alternative tools: answer_prompt for prompts, go_to_step for going back. Also notes step 7 is always done by the user on the web.

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