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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never states that supplied fields overwrite existing block content, that omitted fields are left untouched, or what happens when content and embedUrl are mixed across block types.

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?

It is short, but the first sentence is pure repetition of the title, and the '| context: id, paragraph_id' fragment is formatting noise that duplicates schema information. The genuinely useful clause, 'by paragraph id', is buried in the middle.

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?

This is a destructive, idempotent mutation with six parameters spanning multiple paragraph block types and no output schema. Given that complexity, the description is far too thin — it omits block-type semantics, overwrite behavior, and any post-update state, leaving the schema to carry nearly the entire burden.

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 100%, so the six parameters — including block-type-specific fields like content, embedUrl, isThumbnail, and originalThumbnail — are already documented. The description only echoes the two required ids ('context: id, paragraph_id') and contributes no block-type selection logic beyond what the schema says.

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 opening sentence 'Update paragraph' merely restates the tool name, and the follow-up 'Update one article paragraph by paragraph id' confirms the verb and resource but adds little. The word 'article' implicitly separates it from cms_update_event_paragraph and similar siblings, but this differentiation is never made explicit.

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?

'Guidance: Update one article paragraph by paragraph id' describes mechanics, not when to choose this tool. With siblings like cms_update_photo, cms_update_video, and shop_update_paragraph all operating on paragraph content, an agent gets no routing criteria — nor any statement of when this tool should not be used.

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