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

Despite annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: slug uniqueness scoping, that open tracked changes are silently dropped when the body changes, that a published article's live post is unaffected until republished, and pricing ("Free"). These are exactly the caveats an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then escalating to the constraints that matter most (uniqueness, destructive tracked-change loss, publish caveat). Every sentence carries distinct information, though the trailing "Free." fragment is an orphaned addendum.

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 no explanation, and the destructive/idempotent profile is covered by annotations plus the in-description caveats. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly, including the surprising side effects, 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 description coverage is only 20%, so the description must carry weight. It names the four mutable fields (title, meta_description, slug, html), and adds the slug-uniqueness constraint, which the schema does not encode. It stops short of per-field format guidance that the low coverage would ideally require.

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 (replace) and resource (article) and enumerates exactly which fields are replaceable (title, meta description, slug, HTML body). This clearly scopes the tool apart from get_article, publish_article, and bulk_replace_articles.

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?

"Send only the fields to change" gives an implied partial-update usage pattern, and warning that re-publishing is needed gives actionable follow-up. However, it never states when to use this vs bulk_replace_articles or when not to use it, leaving the alternative-selection question to inference.

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