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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, but the description adds materially more: validation is atomic (an invalid field means nothing changes), the write goes through the form's own update path so guide calculations and controls re-run, and the return payload (applied plus a post-change snapshot with messages) is described.

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-loads purpose in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (validation, side effects, sibling routing, return shape). Slightly dense across six sentences, but 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?

For a nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (draft_id ownership, section/step match), accepted field constraints, failure behavior, side effects, sibling alternatives, and the return shape — nothing essential is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: values must mirror read_draft names/types, section must correspond to the step the guide is currently on, and the draft must belong to the connected account.

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 (fills in / changes fields) scoped to steps 2–6, and explicitly contrasts with fill_input (step 1) and press_button (Yes/No questions and buttons). An agent can distinguish this from every relevant sibling without opening a 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?

Explicit routing rules: use fill_input for step 1, press_button for buttons and Yes/No questions, and only fields present in read_draft with matching type are accepted. It also instructs the agent to ask the user rather than invent values, which is actionable when-to/when-not guidance.

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