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

Beyond the annotations (which only flag non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses the gated lifecycle and that a human must publish, plus the auth requirement of a team key. It omits whether a repeated call with the same slug collides or duplicates, which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, then lifecycle and return value, then the auth prerequisite. No filler or restated name/title.

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?

Covers what it creates, the approval gate, the return values (slug and preview URL) even without an output schema, and the credential requirement. The remaining gap is collision/idempotency behavior for slug reuse, minor for a staging tool.

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 100%, so every parameter including the status enum is already documented. The description's note about draft vs pending restates the schema's own explanation rather than adding new meaning (allowed values, defaults, tag constraints), so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Stages a new article for the Cotal build log') and anchors it with the destination site. The staging framing implicitly separates it from cotal_update_post and the get/list siblings, though no sibling is named.

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?

Explains the draft-vs-pending decision directly in terms of consequence ('lands as a draft unless you submit it for review... goes live only after a human publishes it'), which is exactly the choice an agent must make. It doesn't explicitly say to use cotal_update_post for existing articles instead, so the alternative path is left implied.

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