Update DM draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It transparently notes that null clears optional fields and that approved drafts are reset to draft status—behavior not obvious from the schema. However, it omits other potential details like permissions or return values, so it is not maximally transparent.

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 exceptionally concise—two short sentences—with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word adds value, and it avoids repeating schema details. This is a model of efficient phrasing.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides key behavioral context (null clearing, status reset) but does not cover return values, required prerequisites, or potential side effects beyond the reset. The schema fills in parameter details, but for a mutation tool of this complexity, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.

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%, and each nullable parameter already states 'or null to clear.' The description's statement 'Pass null to clear optional fields' merely restates what the schema already conveys, adding no new meaning. Thus a baseline score 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 begins with 'Edit a DM draft,' which clearly states the tool's action (edit) and resource (DM draft). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'update_draft,' which likely targets a different draft type. The title reinforces the DM-specific scope.

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 implies usage via the name and the phrase 'DM draft,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'update_draft' or other draft operations. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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