Edit a campaign draft

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the description adds real context: required scopes (campaigns:write, luca:queue_ops), data sensitivity 'redacted', and the Idempotency-Key retry contract. Two gaps remain: it never says a PATCH replaces the whole draft body (why destructiveHint is true), and 'Requires Idempotency-Key ... or the server will generate one' is internally contradictory about whether the caller must supply it. Not a hard annotation contradiction, but the 'autosave' framing understates the destructive nature flagged in 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by compact metadata lines (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace). No filler sentences, though the 'Autosave' framing is slightly imprecise and the idempotency sentence contradicts itself, costing a bit of clarity.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explaining, and annotations cover safety, but for a complex 5-parameter tool with a large nested body the description omits the most consequential semantics: what the PATCH replaces, how expectedDraftUpdatedAt conflict handling works, and how a saved draft relates to publish/version siblings. Competent but incomplete.

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 60%: workspaceId, workspaceSlug and idempotencyKey already carry descriptions, and the description merely restates them (workspace override, safe retries). The dominant parameter, the deeply nested `body`/`graph` payload, and `expectedDraftUpdatedAt` (optimistic concurrency) receive no prose explanation in either place, which is the gap the description should have filled.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Autosave/Edit a campaign draft') and the underlying operation (PATCH /api/campaigns/{id}/draft), so an agent knows this persists a new draft body. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like luca_campaigns_publish, luca_campaigns_set_status, or luca_campaigns_duplicate, so an agent must infer which save/state-change tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools that are plausible alternatives (publish vs draft autosave vs set_status). The only routing-adjacent information is the scope and workspace override, which are prerequisites, not usage guidance.

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