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

With only destructiveHint=true in annotations, the description carries the safety burden well: it explains the side effects of PUBLISH (public at once, search-engine crawling that reverting does not undo) and TRASH (live links and menu entries break), plus the draft-by-default creation model and an authorization/consent requirement. The only soft spot is the opening claim "everything reversible," which the later text partially walks back, but the disclosure of what actually happens is unusually rich.

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 core action and status list are front-loaded, followed by sibling routing, consent requirements, and a rules pointer. It is longer than a 2-parameter tool normally warrants and repeats the publish warning, but nearly every sentence carries a safety-relevant distinction, so little is pure padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still covers side effects, sibling routing, consent, and a prerequisite (read the content-contract skill doc first). Nothing an agent needs to call this destructively-correct is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by explaining restore semantics (returns the record with its prior status and address) and by cautioning that reverting status does not reverse crawling. It adds real meaning over the enum definitions rather than restating them.

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 ("Change a page/post/custom record's status") and enumerates all four enum values with plain-language definitions. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from save-content (creates/edits as drafts), delete-content (permanent removal), and list-content (finding trashed records), so an agent can separate it from siblings 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use rules, names the alternatives for adjacent operations (save-content, delete-content, list-content), and adds a hard consent gate for "publish" and "trash" including a counter-example ("Finish this page" is not consent) and the verifying path (preview). This is as directive as usage guidance gets.

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