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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the draft-vs-publish fork, the pre-submit keyword gate, the pending_review state, and that a moderation plugin ultimately publishes or queues review. It omits permission requirements for creation, failure modes, and what fields are dropped on the draft path, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and ownership, then the mode/lifecycle detail. The arrow-chain parenthetical is dense but informative rather than wasteful; only minor trimming is possible.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers lifecycle and ownership well but leaves gaps: creation permissions, error/rejection behavior, and the semantics of visibility, collectionId, and summary are absent. Adequate but not 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 coverage is 56%, so several parameters (summary, visibility, collectionId) are undocumented in both places. The description does add real meaning for publishNow by tying it to the whole downstream pipeline, and implicitly signals that board/topics matter only on publish, but it never addresses the remaining undocumented parameters.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Create a new article (markdown)') and scopes ownership to the authenticated user, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as update_post or admin_approve_post, but the overlap is low enough that purpose is unambiguous.

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 a clear conditional: publishNow=false for a draft versus the default submit/review path, which tells the agent which mode to pick. It never names an alternative tool for any scenario, but no close sibling competes for the same job, so context is sufficient.

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