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

Beyond the destructive/openWorld annotations, it discloses the key side effect an agent must know: published articles get automatically re-published to WordPress with title and status unchanged. It also reveals the async contract (immediate jobId, poll get_generation_status, 1-4 minute latency), which the annotations do not cover.

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 effects, then a clearly labelled ASYNC line for the async contract. Every sentence carries operational information with 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 a single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what changes, the external re-publish side effect, and how to follow up on the async job. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 100% and articleId is fully documented in the schema (including its list_articles source), so the description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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?

The description gives a precise verb+resource ('Rewrites an existing article') and enumerates the concrete changes it makes (dates/stats/examples, headings, FAQ, +300 words). It also anchors to a known UI action, making it immediately distinguishable from sibling generate_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?

Usage is implied by 'existing article' and by the WordPress re-publish branch, and it routes the caller to get_generation_status for polling. However, it never explicitly states when to choose refresh_article over generate_article or when not to use it.

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