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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the live post is overwritten in place (matching destructiveHint=true), that unsupported CMSes cause the call to be refused before anything is sent, that execution is immediate and unschedulable, and that retries keyed on idempotency_key are deduplicated. The keyed-retry guarantee is a refinement of idempotentHint=false rather than a conflict, since dedup only holds for a repeated key. Remaining gaps (auth scopes, rate limits) are minor.

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 its 'no second post' distinction are front-loaded, and the platform matrix is genuinely load-bearing rather than filler. It runs slightly long and the platform lists could be tightened, but no sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with only two parameters and an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies the important context: platform eligibility, pre-flight refusal, immediate execution, and idempotent retries. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or what happens to the source article record after the push.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains idempotency_key meaningfully ('retries with the same idempotency_key never send twice'), but article_id is only implied by 'the saved version of a published article' — the description never states that it is the UUID of the source article, nor which article to use when several are published.

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 precise verb and resource — pushing a saved article version over its existing live post — and pins the outcome ('the post changes at its URL and no second post is added'), which is exactly what separates it from publish_article. It also names replace_article as the prerequisite editing step, so an agent can place it in the workflow 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?

Explicitly gives the precondition ('Edit the article first with replace_article') and then enumerates supported targets (WordPress/Rankwise plugin, Next.js, Rails, webhook, Shopify) versus no-op targets (Rankwise-hosted blog, Framer) versus refused targets (Webflow, Wix, Notion, Ghost, WordPress.com), telling the agent to edit those by hand. It also rules out scheduling ('runs now and cannot be scheduled') and notes the expert-approval gate for drafts.

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