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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses real behavioral traits: partial-update semantics, the fact that publishing makes content live for both visitors and the agent, that 'draft' unpublishes, that every save adds a restorable version, and that collection membership is fixed. It does not explain permission/auth requirements or confirm the destructive implication (published content going offline) that destructiveHint=true raises, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first clause, then layers in only high-value facts: partial-update behavior, publish/unpublish effect, versioning, and fixed collection. Five short sentences, each earning its place, with no redundancy.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers update semantics, publish side effects, and recoverability well. It leaves open permission requirements and error/failure behavior, but for a partial-update tool the essentials an agent needs to invoke it are present.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including the status enum and slug format. The description restates which fields are updatable but adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail (e.g. productId/slug scope) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (change/update) plus resource (help article) and enumerates the mutable fields (title, description, Markdown body, status). It also distinguishes behavior from nearby siblings by naming restore_article_version and clarifying the article cannot be moved between collections, so an agent can tell it apart from create_article or move-style tools.

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 clear context: partial-update semantics ('only the fields given change'), the meaning of publishing vs draft for the help center and the agent, and the fact that each save creates a restorable version. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not rules against siblings like archive_article, which also sets the archived state, leaving some overlap to inference.

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