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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, which on their own would make an agent wary of unintended overwrites. The description resolves that tension by clarifying that only passed fields change (not a full replace), and adds the real side effect that publishing exposes the article publicly. Permissions requirements are still unstated.

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 with no filler; the partial-update rule is front-loaded right after the field list, and the public-visibility warning closes it. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and a destructive hint, the description covers the essentials: what can change, that changes are additive, and the public side effect. It would be stronger with permission requirements or any consequences of archiving.

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 14% (just portal_slug), so the description must carry the load. It does name the updatable fields and maps 'category' to the category_id parameter, and repeats the status enum, but adds no format, length, or validation detail beyond that.

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 ('Change a help center article') and enumerates the mutable surface (title, content, description, category, status). It does not distinguish itself from the nearby update_kb_document sibling, which is the only real gap.

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?

'Only the fields you pass change' usefully signals partial-update semantics, and 'Publishing makes it public' hints at when to use the published status. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over update_kb_document or update_category, nor any stated prerequisites.

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