draft_update_placement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update an existing draft placement' without explaining what happens to the draft, whether it's a partial update, any permissions required, or the response format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, effectively front-loading the core purpose. However, its brevity sacrifices needed operational details, so it's not perfect.

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?

With a nested object parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, this minimal description doesn't explain the structure or behavior of the 'draft' object, nor does it mention return values or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for an update 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% (both 'id' and 'draft' are described). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing draft placement'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like draft_create_placement, draft_get_placement, and draft_delete_placement. It also differentiates from the non-draft 'update_placement' by including 'draft'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draft_create_placement or update_placement. It doesn't mention the draft lifecycle or that changes may need to be saved via draft_save_campaign, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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