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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds material behavior the annotations do not: the two-step confirmToken flow, that the CMS date is not actually changed, that the writing queue is not re-sorted until the next run, and the past-date refusal rule. This is unusually rich disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

The action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct behavioral information with no filler. It is slightly dense but 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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what the first call returns (a summary and confirmToken) and the constraints on dates. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly, including the two-step confirmation protocol.

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 75% and already documents site, publishDate, and confirmToken. The description adds the semantics of the confirmToken handshake (first call returns summary + token, second call proceeds), which clarifies why the parameter exists beyond the schema text. The undocumented id parameter is implicitly covered by "an article."

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 ("Move an article to a new publish date") that clearly separates it from siblings like update_article, mark_published, and republish_article. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

It supplies real conditional guidance about past dates (refused unless the article is already on the CMS as draft/published), which is genuine when-to-use context. However, it never names or contrasts with alternatives such as update_article or republish_article, so the routing decision against siblings is left to inference.

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