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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that corrections become public immediately, that original author/slugs/media/tags/state are preserved, that 'new' is escaped plain text, and that each 'old' must match exactly one text-node occurrence. It omits revertibility and rate-limit/permission-failure behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 description is dense but front-loaded, leading with scope and the read-first requirement before detailing payload syntax. Every sentence carries an operational constraint, though the format examples make it somewhat heavy to parse.

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 4-required-param mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers scope, prerequisites, payload format, preservation semantics, and publication effects. Only the token/auth parameter and any return behavior go unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the tricky 'changes' payload by giving concrete shapes (plain title/description, parts array, replacements) and explaining that 'revision' comes from get. 'token' and 'article_id' are left unexplained, which is the main residual gap.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Correct ... articles') and bounds the scope with 'owned/operator-granted' and 'no global pages', which meaningfully separates it from a general content-editing tool. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like online_content_edit, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It states a clear prerequisite workflow ('read revision, html and text_nodes first') and a caution ('confirm wording before calling') tied to the immediate-publication behavior. It does not name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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