Put Draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether the update is a full replacement or a merge, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to omitted fields. 'Update an existing draft' implies mutation and a precondition (draft must exist), but that is the extent of the disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The brevity edges into under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally nothing is misplaced.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, a nested free-form update_payload, and only an output schema to lean on. The description should clarify which fields are updatable and what the payload actually does, but it offers nothing beyond the schema's example fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 ('update') and resource ('existing draft by draft ID'), which is clear enough on its own. It does not differentiate from siblings like post_draft_from_markdown or prepublish_draft that also touch drafts, so an agent still has to infer where the boundary lies.

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 gives no conditions for use, no exclusions, and no alternatives. It never says whether this should be used for content edits versus publishing/scheduling flows covered by publish_draft or schedule_draft, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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