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

With annotations already covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description still adds real behavioral context: partial-update semantics ('Only the fields given change') and the effect of publishing ('shows it on the public changelog and in the widget'). It does not contradict the annotations, though it stops short of describing reversibility of publishing/archiving or permission requirements.

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 with the mutation scope front-loaded; the field list is compact and the publish-side-effect sentence is the most important behavioral fact. 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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema and no rich annotations, the description covers what fields exist, that it is a patch operation, and what publishing does. Remaining gaps (whether archived entries are editable, whether productId must match the entry's product, response shape) are moderate but not disqualifying.

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 25% (just id and productId are documented), so the description carries the load and does so by naming every other updatable field: title, body, summary, version, tags, status. That maps 6 of 8 parameters to concrete concepts, though it adds no syntax detail (tag replacement behavior, version format) and doesn't explain the draft/published/archived enum beyond mentioning 'publishing'.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Change a changelog entry') followed by an enumeration of mutable fields (title, body, summary, version, tags, status). An agent can tell it apart from create_changelog_entry / delete_changelog_entry from the name alone, but the description never states the relationship or boundary to those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the 'Only the fields given change' partial-update note, which is genuinely useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., entry must exist, productId must match), and no named alternatives such as create_changelog_entry or draft_changelog_from_releases.

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