Pipepost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the draft is 'local' and 'FREE,' which adds some context about storage location and cost. However, it doesn't describe what 'save' actually does operationally - whether it creates new drafts only, updates existing ones, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on failure.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'FREE' qualifier adds useful context without unnecessary elaboration. However, the dash formatting is slightly awkward, and it could be more polished while maintaining conciseness.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after saving (e.g., returns a draft ID, confirmation message), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. The 'FREE' note is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing operational details.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide usage examples, or clarify edge cases. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('save content as a local draft') and purpose ('for later publishing'), with the added context of being 'FREE' which distinguishes it from potential paid alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_draft' or 'get_draft' beyond the basic verb difference.

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 provides minimal guidance - only that drafts are for 'later publishing' and are 'FREE.' It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'publish' directly, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints beyond the implied draft state.

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