Create a new local draft version

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

With annotations all false, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that updates are implemented by appending an immutable version, and that sent versions are immutable, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation fields.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core functionality and a key restriction with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 description provides the essential versioning behavior and the sent-version constraint, but for a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it lacks parameter-specific guidance and explicit alternatives, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the description only mentions 'selected local draft fields' without enumerating parameters or explaining the role of postId. It leans on self-explanatory field names but fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Update' targeting 'local draft' and clarifies that updating appends an immutable version, distinguishing it from creating a new draft. It also explicitly states that sent versions cannot be changed, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 clearly establishes the tool is for modifying local drafts and provides a when-not condition ('Existing sent versions cannot be changed'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_local_draft, so it stops short of a full 5.

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