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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description reinforces this with the two-step confirmToken protocol, telling the agent the first call is only a summary. It further discloses the async/background execution model and how to verify the outcome, which annotations cannot express.

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, front-loaded with the action and eligibility, then the async behavior, then the destructive confirmation requirement. 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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: eligibility, content source, background execution, the confirmation handshake, and where to check the result.

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 coverage is 67%, with site and confirmToken documented in the schema. The description adds real meaning to confirmToken by explaining the two-call flow and that it must match the prior arguments, going beyond the schema text. The 'id' parameter remains undocumented in both places, which is the only gap.

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 ('Push a published or failed article to the website again'), specifies the source of content ('re-sends the current Blawgy content'), and clarifies it differs from a first-time publish by naming the eligible article states. An agent can distinguish it from publish_draft, mark_published, or reschedule_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?

Explicit when-to-use ('after a failed publish or when the live post drifted') and an eligibility restriction ('Only for published or failed articles with a body'). It also routes the agent to the follow-up tool: 'check list_articles for the status afterwards'.

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