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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. On top of that, the description adds patch semantics ("Trimite doar câmpurile care se schimbă"), telling the agent that omitted fields are preserved rather than cleared. It does not say whether replaced content or tags are recoverable or what permissions are required, but with annotations covering safety, that is a minor gap.

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 text is short and front-loaded with purpose and then usage boundaries in a sensible order. However, it effectively says everything twice: once in Romanian and once in English, with no information gain in the second pass. Because of this duplication, it wastes roughly half its length.

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?

A full output schema, nine fully documented parameters and a complete annotation set mean that the description does not have to explain return values, formats or the safety profile. What remains, namely the purpose, the create-versus-update boundary and the patch behavior, is present. Only minor details such as permission requirements or how destructive overwrites behave are absent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so every one of the nine parameters already carries its own constraint and replacement semantics (for example, tags replace the old list, and contentHtml replaces the old body). The description adds only the general send-only-changed-fields rule, so it adds little meaning beyond what the structured schema already provides. This makes the baseline score of 3 the correct choice.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource plus field scope: "Schimbă titlul, conținutul sau metadatele unei ciorne". This makes it clear this is a mutation of an existing draft, and it explicitly points to create_article so the agent can tell them apart. The only thing that holds it back from a 5 is that the Romanian sentence and the English sentence restate the same purpose, without adding a fuller enumeration of the editable fields.

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 usage guidance is explicit in both directions: "Use when changing the title, content or SEO fields of an existing draft" states when this tool applies, while "Do not use when creating a new article: use create_article" names the alternative tool and the condition that should select it instead. It also instructs the agent to send only the fields that are changing, which is actionable guidance and not just context.

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