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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious context: only provided fields change (partial update), ownership restriction across users, and the provider-copy caveat. It does not, however, disclose whether the operation is reversible or what auth/scope is required beyond ownership.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope; the provider-safe caveat is appropriately placed last. No filler, though the final sentence is slightly verbose.

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 covers the critical caveats an agent needs: partial-update semantics, ownership restrictions, and the scheduled-Article provider-sync hazard. Given a mutation tool with rich annotations, this is complete.

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% and each field ('Draft id.', 'New title.', 'New HTML body.', coverImage semantics) is documented in-schema, including the upload_media workflow hint. The description adds the general rule 'Only the provided fields are changed', which aligns with but does not extend 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 constrains the scope to unscheduled drafts, distinguishing it from get_draft, list_drafts, and the schedule_* siblings. The redirect note about active scheduled Articles further separates it from amend_scheduled_item.

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 tells the agent when NOT to use it ('An active scheduled Article must be cancelled or amended through a provider-safe schedule workflow'), routing to amend/cancel siblings. However, it does not name the specific alternative tool (e.g. amend_scheduled_item) by name.

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