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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by declaring the operation is 'side-effect-free' with 'No identity or storage' — effectively the safety profile. But it stops short of describing what the checks emit, failure semantics, or whether it blocks a later create.

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 compact sentences, front-loading the action and the no-side-effect guarantee. No filler or repetition.

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 and no annotations, so the description ideally would state what the checks return or how results are surfaced. It covers the input contract and safety posture but leaves the outcome side thin for a validation tool.

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 both parameters are already documented, including that 'draft' is the complete edited working_draft from prepare_create and 'campaign' must be preserved. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 (run checks) and resource (edited CREATE working_draft) and names the check families (P0-P2, renderer, originality). It implies a distinct role from prepare_create (which produces the draft) but never names that sibling, so differentiation requires inference.

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 phrase 'edited CREATE working_draft' implies the prepare_create -> edit -> preflight workflow, and the schema note ties 'draft' to prepare_create's output. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives, and no guidance on sequencing relative to publish_game or other flow tools.

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