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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it is a partial/patch update ('only the provided fields are changed'), it enforces an ownership boundary, and it warns that editing a scheduled item's local draft won't propagate to the provider.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, each earning its place. It is slightly dense in the last sentence but not padded.

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 explained, and the description covers scope, ownership, and the scheduling hazard. What remains unstated is the exact replacement workflow/tool for scheduled items, but overall it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, including nested coverImage fields, so the schema carries parameter meaning and baseline 3 applies. The description adds patch semantics ('only the provided fields are changed') but no per-field detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Update an unscheduled draft') and immediately scopes it away from scheduled Articles, which is exactly the ambiguity that separates it from amend_scheduled_item and cancel_scheduled_item. The agent can select the right sibling 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?

Explicitly says when NOT to use it (active scheduled Articles must go through a provider-safe schedule workflow) and states an ownership precondition. It stops short of naming the exact alternative tool (amend_scheduled_item) to use instead, so it is strong but not fully routing.

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