drafts_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the endpoint is undocumented, implying instability, but does not describe side effects, required permissions, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise (one sentence), but it is not well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose but omits any supporting details. Structure could be improved by listing parameters or adding guidance.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks completeness for a 7-parameter tool with no schema descriptions. It does not explain return behavior, error handling, or constraints like required fields' formats, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. For example, 'client_last_updated_ts' and 'broadcast' are unexplained, leaving the agent without semantic context for correct usage.

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 the action (update) and resource (draft), distinguishing it from siblings like drafts_create, drafts_delete, and drafts_list. However, it could be more specific about what aspects of a draft can be updated, relying on the schema for field details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., drafts_create or drafts_list). There are no prerequisites, context signals, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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