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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: the status='ready' gate, partial-update semantics ('Fields you omit are kept'), and a content validity constraint ('keep at least a few paragraphs'). It does not say what happens to a draft that is not ready or whether edits can be reverted.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and target front-loaded and the precondition and partial-update rule following. Every clause earns its place.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool with 5 params, the description covers the operation, the precondition, the editable field set, and the omit-keeps-existing rule. Missing only updateId guidance and an explicit alternative for the non-'ready' case, which is minor.

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 only 20% (only 'site' is documented), so the description must carry the load and largely does: it explains that title, metaDescription and contentHtml are the editable fields and imposes a length expectation on contentHtml. updateId and the 200/300 char limits are left to the schema, but the semantics of the mutation surface are well covered.

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 (edit/change) and resource (update draft) and enumerates the mutable fields: title, metaDescription, contentHtml. The phrase 'before approving it' implicitly separates it from approve_update, though it never names that sibling outright.

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 a concrete precondition ('Only drafts in status "ready" can be edited') and a temporal context ('before approving it'). It stops short of explicitly naming approve_update, publish_draft, or revert_update as alternatives, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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