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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: what actually happens (moved to Trash, restorable with restore_article), a side effect worth knowing ('its topic is not planned again'), and a key limitation ('a post already live on the client's own CMS ... is NOT removed from the CMS'). It also discloses that the first call is non-mutating and returns a preview.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its reversibility, then the CMS caveat, then the confirm workflow. Slightly long and colon-heavy, but nearly every clause carries an actionable constraint.

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 3-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation's effect, reversibility path, side effects, the CMS edge case, and the required confirm sequence. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 baseline is 3; the description adds genuine interaction semantics on top by prescribing the confirm=false-then-true sequence and noting the preview content ('the preview says where it stays live'), which the schema only states abstractly. It does not add anything for brand or article_id beyond the schema.

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 ('Move an article ... to the Trash') and immediately scopes it: soft-delete that is restorable, not CMS removal. Explicitly names the sibling restore_article and distinguishes CMS-hosted posts from the deletion behaviour, so an agent can separate it from publish_article/archive_prompts without opening schemas.

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 an explicit two-step protocol ('Always call WITHOUT confirm first and show the preview ... call again with confirm: true only after they approve') plus the undo route (restore_article, Trash UI). When-to-use and when-not-to-proceed are both spelled out, which is unusual and valuable for a destructive tool.

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