Create an Evergreen queue

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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds the key behavioral fact that the result is an inert draft with nothing scheduled or activated. That is meaningful value beyond the annotations. It does not address what happens on a duplicate retry given idempotentHint=false, nor that captions must be confirmed via contentConfirmed for later activation.

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, zero filler, and the draft-versus-activate distinction is front-loaded in sentence two where an agent will read it before invoking. Nothing repeats the title or the schema.

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 nails the lifecycle position of the tool, which is the single hardest thing to infer among ~33 siblings. For a 13-parameter creation tool with no output schema, though, it omits what the returned draft looks like, what makes a post eligible, and how defaults for interval/schedule govern future runs.

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?

With 13 parameters and only 23% schema description coverage, the description carries a large compensation burden and offers no parameter meaning at all — nothing about variants, channels, intervalDays, scheduleMode, or reviewPolicy. The most consequential params (productId, contentConfirmed) are documented only inside the schema, so the description adds nothing on this dimension.

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?

"Create a draft Evergreen queue from an eligible published post" names a specific verb, a specific resource, and the input it derives from. The second clause distinguishes it from activate_evergreen_queue, a sibling in the same family, so an agent can route 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?

It clearly separates creation from activation and scheduling, naming the sibling that performs the latter — a real when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming preview_evergreen_queue or update_evergreen_queue as alternatives, and gives no prerequisites for "eligible" published post beyond the adjective.

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