Create a Hashnode draft

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds the important nuance that this tool only creates a draft and does not publish, plus it lists the return fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 opening sentences are concise and front-loaded with crucial workflow info. However, the exhaustive Args list duplicates schema descriptions, adding length without new information. It could be trimmed to just the non-obvious notes.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields (draft id, title, slug, tags, updatedAt). Combined with the 100% schema coverage and annotations, the tool is well-specified for correct invocation. Minor gaps like error handling are not critical.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The Args list in the description largely repeats schema information, adding only minor clarifications like 'slug must be lowercase with hyphens' which is already in the schema.

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 creates a new draft in a Hashnode publication, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool hashnode_publish_draft by explicitly noting it does not publish.

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 explicitly says 'Does NOT publish — use hashnode_publish_draft afterwards.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative, fulfilling the behavioral exclusion requirement.

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