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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds real behavioral context: the article defaults to a draft unless status is 'published', it is indexed for search and the agent, and passing gapId marks the question drafted. It omits any auth/permission requirements, so not a full 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the draft-default and collection/gapId details following logically. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the creation semantics, default status, collection targeting, and the gapId side effect. It leaves the 'description' field and product scoping unaddressed, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: collection accepts an id, an existing title, or a new name, and gapId has the side effect of marking the question drafted. The 'description' parameter is left unaddressed.

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 description states a specific verb+resource ('Write a new help article in a hosted product'), and 'new' implicitly distinguishes it from update_article. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

It gives conditional guidance for one path ('Pass gapId when the article answers an unanswered question') and the default status behavior, but offers no when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance against draft_article_from_conversation or update_article. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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