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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false), it discloses partial-update semantics, immediate public visibility of published-story changes ('visible to readers at once'), a default per-call confirmation that can be toggled off, the external side effect on other people, and the required Cotlet API key. This is materially more than the structured fields convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are economical. Minor redundancy between 'By default you confirm each call; you can switch that off' and 'Reaches other people: confirm with the user before each call' slightly dilutes it.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations supplied, the description covers the mutation scope, visibility consequences, confirmation policy, and auth requirement. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents fields and story_id fully. The description's field list essentially mirrors the schema's 'fields' description, adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Change the title, subtitle, body, tags, canonical link or paywall of a draft or a published story') and enumerates the editable fields. An agent can clearly tell it apart from create_draft, publish_story, and submit_to_publication since it is scoped to editing an existing story.

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?

'of a draft or a published story' and 'Changes only the fields you send' give clear context for when this applies and that it is a partial update. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g. publish_story, create_draft), so no explicit when-not guidance is given.

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