privacy_security_draft_put

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that it's a full replace (PUT) and that the information is not yet public, providing useful context beyond 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 description is concise with two sentences plus a link and emoji. Information is front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.

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 lacks explanation of return values, side effects, or the relationship to published privacy-and-security information. Without an output schema, more detail is needed for completeness.

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 two parameters: body (with description 'Full privacy-and-security payload') and productId (no description). The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics or expected values, failing to compensate for the 50% schema coverage.

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 tool creates or updates draft privacy-and-security information, specifies the HTTP method (PUT) and that it performs a full replace. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like privacy_security_delete, privacy_security_get, and privacy_security_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 implies the tool is for draft management (not yet public) and notes it's a full replace, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus reading (privacy_security_get) or publishing (privacy_security_publish). Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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