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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful nuance — it writes to a shared knowledge library and post-publish edits do not mutate a published release — which is genuine versioning context not captured by annotations. However, it never explains what 'destructive' means here (overwrites a draft? replaces an existing article?) or what permissions/publishing gate apply, leaving a real gap for a destructive 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important behavioral qualifier (draft-only, publish-is-immutable). No filler or repetition of the 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?

Given 13 parameters (11 required), destructiveHint=true, no output schema, and 15% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits the concurrency contract (expected_revision), retry semantics (idempotency_key), permission/publish prerequisites, and what the destructive overwrite actually affects — all things an agent needs before invoking a destructive write with this many required inputs.

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 only 15%, so the description must compensate, but it barely does. It loosely maps 'source references' to source_url and 'managed asset IDs' to asset_ids, yet leaves the semantically critical parameters unexplained — expected_revision (concurrency/optimistic locking), idempotency_key (retry behavior), slug, topic, reason, and verified_at. With 11 of 13 params required and undocumented, this is a clear shortfall.

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 title and description both name a specific verb pair ('create or edit') and resource ('Markdown customer article') with meaningful qualifiers (source references, managed asset IDs). An agent can distinguish it from a pure read like summer_guides_articles_get, though nothing explicitly separates it from the sibling save tools summer_guides_save or summer_knowledge_edit.

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 never says when to choose this tool over summer_guides_save, summer_guides_publish, or summer_knowledge_create/edit. The clause about saving a draft and not altering a published release provides context on scope, but it is not real guidance on when to invoke this versus alternatives.

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