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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false, so the mutation and safety profile is covered. The description adds the ordering constraint (article must pre-exist), but says nothing about what happens to the gap record afterward or whether re-running is safe, so it only marginally exceeds the annotation baseline.

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-loading the action and following with the prerequisite and the shortcut alternative. 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 three-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, the preconditions, and the alternative workflow. The main omission is any note about reversibility or the reopen_gap counterpart.

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 100%, so id, productId, and articleSlug are already fully documented in the schema. The description names 'gapId' in passing and refers to the answering article but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the structured fields. 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 with scope: marking an unanswered question from list_gaps as drafted against the answering article. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dismiss_gap, reopen_gap, and create_article.

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 prerequisite and an alternative path: the article must exist first, and create_article with gapId accomplishes both steps. It does not, however, contrast against dismiss_gap or reopen_gap, which are the nearest siblings an agent might confuse it with.

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