plan_draft_update

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by adding 'No writes,' explaining the receipt binding observed state, and disclosing limitations: 'Hashes check consistency, not human approval; stale detection is best-effort, not atomic.' This is strong behavioral context that helps an agent trust and interpret the result.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each sentence adds value, though the list 'bounded previews, conversion losses and preflight' is jargon-heavy and slightly awkward.

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 safety profile, no-write guarantee, receipt semantics, and consistency caveats are well covered, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, with 6 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the lack of parameter guidance is a real gap, and the relationship to preflight_draft is left implicit.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it never mentions draft_id, allow_unsupported, audience, or subtitle. 'Markdown/metadata changes' loosely hints at body/title/subtitle but doesn't clarify the important flags or defaults.

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The description clearly states it reads/reviews an unpublished draft and proposed Markdown/metadata changes, and it distinguishes itself from update_draft by explicitly saying 'No writes' and returning a receipt for update_draft. However, the word 'preflight' overlaps with the sibling preflight_draft, so it doesn't fully separate itself from that tool.

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 phrase 'exact payload for update_draft' plus 'No writes' establishes clear context that this is a planning/preview step before updating a draft. It doesn't provide explicit when-not guidance or name alternatives such as preflight_draft or get_draft.

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