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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the object lands in draft state (not live), author_id defaults to the caller, and content is interpreted as markdown. It omits anything about failure modes, permission requirements, or whether repeats create duplicates, so it stops short of 5.

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 tight sentences, each delivering distinct information (what it creates, the draft/publish path, author and content semantics). Nothing is redundant with the title, and the creation fact is front-loaded.

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?

For a six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential state (draft) and follow-up path (update_article), which is the highest-value missing context. It still leaves category_id unexplained and does not hint at what the call returns (e.g. the new article id) that a caller would need for the publish step.

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 17% (just portal_slug), so the description would need to carry the load for the other five parameters. It clarifies author_id semantics (defaults to you; pass an agent id from list_agents) and content format (markdown), but says nothing about title, category_id, or description constraints, leaving roughly half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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+resource ('Create a new help center article'), which cleanly separates it from update_article, delete_article, get_article and list_articles in the sibling set. An agent knows immediately what object is produced.

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?

Explicitly describes the post-creation workflow and names the alternative: the article is created as a draft and publishing requires calling update_article with status published. It also routes agent-crediting through list_agents, so the agent does not have to guess at follow-up steps.

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