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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world); the description adds substantial specifics: local-save-always behavior, the CMS draft-stays-draft rule, the cmsWarning return on partial failure, keep-omitted-fields semantics, and the two-phase summary/confirmToken flow. These are exactly the traits that change how an agent sequences its calls.

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?

Sentences are front-loaded with the editable fields and each one carries distinct information (sync behavior, failure handling, patching semantics, alternative tool, confirm flow). Dense but not padded; the parenthetical asides are slight compression rather than 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 7-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers return signaling (cmsWarning), the confirmation protocol, and the local-vs-CMS effect. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of permission/auth requirements or error shapes beyond the CMS warning.

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 only 57%, so the description has to compensate, and it does: it names the mutable fields, clarifies the body is full-replacement HTML, and states that omitted fields are preserved (partial-update semantics not encoded in the schema). It does not explain constraints like the maxLength/maxItems limits, but that gap is covered by the schema itself.

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 (edit an article) and enumerates exactly which fields are mutable: title, keywords, HTML body, productIds. It also names sibling tools (reschedule_article, republish_article) that an agent might otherwise confuse with this one, so disambiguation is possible without opening any 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 routes date changes to reschedule_article and failed CMS syncs to republish_article, which gives concrete alternative selection. It does not state when not to use the tool (e.g. for builder drafts, which have their own siblings), so this is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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