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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the ~10-minute publishing window relative to publishDate, live-vs-CMS-draft depending on the post-as-draft setting, that it marks the draft published, that it does not count against posts per week, and the exact two-phase confirmToken flow. This explains the destructiveHint concretely rather than merely restating it.

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-loads the purpose, then layers invocation modes, publishing behavior, return value, and the confirm-token warning in a logical order. It is dense but every sentence carries actionable content; the parenthetical asides add minor length without waste.

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 10-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation flow, publishing timing, draft-vs-live outcome, and return value ('new article id for get_article and reschedule_article'). Nothing essential to correct invocation appears 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?

With schema coverage at 40%, the description meaningfully compensates for the key parameters: draftId semantics (uses the draft's article, title, keywords and image), title+sections (HTML per section), and the override rule. It leaves several parameters (site, keywords, productIds, featuredImage, metaDescription) untouched, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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+resource+outcome: 'Save a finished Article Builder article to the site's plan as a written article.' The word 'finished' and the two input modes (draftId vs title+sections) implicitly separate it from save_builder_draft, while the mention of get_article/reschedule_article anchors it in the tool graph. An agent can distinguish this from publish_draft and write_article_now without opening a schema.

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 states the two invocation modes ('Give either draftId ... or title + sections') and the precedence rule ('explicit fields override the draft'), plus the timing and post-as-draft behavior. It does not directly compare against sibling alternatives like write_article_now or publish_draft, so it falls short of a 5 on when-not-to-use.

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