Save daily draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping by clarifying no approval or publication occurs, but says nothing about whether an existing draft for the same workDate is overwritten, how sourceFingerprint affects conflict handling, or what permissions are required.

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 tight sentences with the scope-boundary claim front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter explanation noted elsewhere rather than being an independent flaw.

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 7-required-parameter write tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer: draft identity key, overwrite behavior, fingerprint purpose. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but not from explaining inputs.

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 0% across 7 required parameters, so the description must carry the meaning and it carries none. Semantically loaded fields like timezone, workDate format, sourceFingerprint (presumably a conflict/staleness token) and the sourceEventIds provenance link are left entirely unexplained.

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 (persist) and resource (daily draft), plus the qualifying detail that the draft is AI-proposed. Together with the explicit 'does not approve or publish' clause, it separates itself from approve_daily_draft and the publish tools, though the relationship to save vs. update_daily_draft is left unaddressed.

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 description excludes two adjacent operations (approval, publication), which is real guidance. But it never says when to use this versus update_daily_draft or get_daily_draft, and the save/update boundary is the most likely selection error among siblings.

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