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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description usefully reframes that by explaining the article and its history are preserved and the action is reversible via update_article. That is real context beyond the annotations. It stops short of mentioning permission requirements or the resulting article state.

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, zero waste, with the effect front-loaded before the reversal path and the 'not deleted' clarification. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 two-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key agent questions: what changes, what is retained, and how to reverse it. It could note whether article versions/history remain listable after archiving, but that is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% — slug (including collection) and productId are both documented in the schema, including provenance ('from list_articles', 'from list_products'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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+resource ('Take a help article out of the help center') and immediately narrows the effect: removed from public help center AND away from the AI agent, while retaining the article and its history. It explicitly distinguishes itself from deletion ('Articles are not deleted from here'), so an agent can separate it from any destructive/trash semantics.

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?

Gives a clear reversal path — 'update_article with status "published" brings it back' — which tells the agent both when this tool is appropriate and how to undo it. It doesn't spell out prerequisites or a case where a different tool is preferred, but the 'not deleted from here' note implicitly rules out the delete interpretation.

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