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

Annotations only give the generic readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false / openWorldHint=true trio; the description adds real behavioral context: the same id/slug/question/date are preserved, the previous version is kept and restorable, published articles are diverted into a refreshed draft, quota implications, and an expected runtime of about a minute.

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-loaded with the core action and its constraints, and every clause carries information (preservation, non-destruction, quota, workflow, timing). It is a dense single paragraph with several parentheses, so it is slightly heavy but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the preview behavior, confirmation requirement, state preservation, quota, and rough duration. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly in the right sequencing.

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 parameters are already documented. The description still adds value by explaining the preview-then-confirm protocol and the alternative identification path (article_id from list_articles vs. the target question), which the schema states only flatly.

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 (rewrite/refresh) and resource (a WRITTEN article) and scopes it precisely: 'with the brand's current profile after it changed'. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like draft_article, publish_article, delete_article, and restore_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 an explicit trigger (after the profile changed), an explicit boundary (a published article is never overwritten), a cost rule (free once per article, otherwise article allowance), and the required workflow (preview first, then confirm: true). It also points to list_articles for the id.

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