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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description's one real contribution is the state-machine side effect: an approved draft loses approval after editing. It does not say whether the edit is partial/merge or full replacement, or whether in-flight published content is affected.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the destructive side effect placed where it will be read. Slightly cryptic wording ("or the draft") costs a little clarity but the brevity is appropriate.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description should clarify what is replaced, what happens to published versions, and whether partial updates are allowed. It covers only the approval-reset consequence, leaving the mutation semantics underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions title and the draft body (the html param) but says nothing about articleId (the only required param), field length limits, or whether omitting a field leaves it unchanged.

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?

"Change the title or the draft" names a verb and the editable fields, but "the draft" is vague (draft content? draft post?) and it never says 'article', relying on the tool name. Against siblings like soclo_articles_approve, _reject, _publish and _draft, the boundary between 'edit' and 'draft' is not established.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus soclo_articles_draft, soclo_articles_approve, or soclo_articles_reject. The approval-reset sentence implies a workflow context but is phrased as a consequence, not a usage rule.

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