save_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the pre-flight check on the publish control and the refusal path if the page is not on its private setting, plus the concrete KVR observation (is_draft=1). It omits auth requirements, idempotency, and what a refusal looks like on the wire, so not a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the body is roughly 180 words of literary rationale ('a page left armed by anything else will not slip out through it', the operator/approval framing) that a caller does not need. Several sentences are rhetorical rather than operational.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the safety invariant is well documented, but for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, leaving `reason` and `confirm` undefined is a real gap. An agent can call it, but not confidently with non-default arguments.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three params. It explains `submit` well — the control that sends the form, discoverable via `read_form`'s `submitText` — but `reason` is never mentioned and `confirm` is only obliquely implied by the description of the private-setting check rather than tied to the boolean.

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 concrete verb and resource (save the item privately) and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling `publish`, making it distinguishable without opening the schema. The guard behavior ('cannot be used to publish') sharpens the scope further.

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?

It names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it: 'Use `publish` instead when the item should go out to an audience.' It also explains why the distinction matters, which is the when-not case an agent needs.

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