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

The description only states 'create article' and adds no side-effect details beyond the annotations. The annotations already cover read-only, idempotency, and destructiveness, but the description does not mention default status, return value, or publication behavior.

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 short and mostly concise, but the 'Guidance: ... | context: title, categories' fragment is awkward and slightly redundant, reducing clarity without adding meaningful structure.

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?

The schema covers all parameters and notes category discovery via cms_list_cms_sections, but the description is minimal and does not mention the created article output or basic workflow expectations. It is adequate but not complete for a 15-parameter tool.

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?

The input schema already describes every parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds little semantic value beyond the schema's own detailed field descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the action as creating one CMS article, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cms_create_article_paragraph and the other content-type create tools. The phrase 'from article category ids' reinforces the intended input.

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?

The description implies this is the tool for creating a new article versus updating or creating paragraphs, but it does not explicitly call out alternatives such as cms_update_article or cms_create_article_paragraph. Sibling names allow inference, but there is no direct usage guidance.

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