edit_creative

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the edits are atomic, schedule dates and dependencies are validated, mind-map additions retain branch positions, and pins are respected. However it does not disclose concurrency/conflict behavior around expectedRevision or what happens on revision mismatch.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and operation set, followed by validation and edge-case behavior, then the sibling routing. Sentences are dense and mostly earn their place, though fragments like 'pins are respected' are terse to the point of being cryptic.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema and an untyped operations array, the description covers atomicity, validation, and edge behaviors reasonably well. But it omits the revision/concurrency semantics of the required expectedRevision and does not describe preview or includeSource, leaving meaningful gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 only 20% (just the 'name' parameter). The description clarifies the kinds of operations the untyped 'operations' array can carry, but the required 'expectedRevision' is never explained (no mention of optimistic concurrency or conflicts), and 'preview'/'includeSource' are wholly unaddressed. With low coverage the description fails to compensate for most parameters.

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+resource (atomic typed creative edits with stable item IDs) and enumerates the actual operations it performs: update item fields, add/remove an item, move_card. It explicitly routes the agent to the sibling patch_drawing, so it is distinguishable from adjacent tools without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use ordinary patch_drawing for local label/style changes,' implying this tool is for structural edits. It gives the when-not clearly but does not disambiguate against other siblings like edit_drawing or compose_creative.

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