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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write; the description adds the real behavioral consequences (document hidden from public help section, Aide stops citing it) and notes it returns the document. It doesn't state reversibility (i.e., that publish_knowledge_document can undo it) or any permission requirements, so it stops just short of full transparency.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: effect first, restriction and alternative second, return value last. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 low-complexity single-parameter mutation with no output schema and light annotations, the definition covers effect, exclusion, alternative, and return value. Only the reversibility path (republish) and permission expectations are missing, which are minor gaps here.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including provenance hints ('from list_knowledge_documents or search_knowledge'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id format or validity, making the baseline score 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 and resource ('Turn a published article back into a draft') and spells out the concrete effect on both the public help section and Aide's answers. An agent can distinguish this from publish_knowledge_document and update_knowledge_article 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?

Explicitly excludes an unsupported case ('Snippets can't be unpublished') and names the alternative action with its parameter ('set `usedByAide` to false with update_knowledge_article') for keeping a document out of answers. This is a clear when/when-not/alternative routing.

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