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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description adds real behavior beyond that – publication is publicly visible to all visitors, there is no review step unless the agent asks, images must sit on a verified domain, and plan quotas can refuse the call. This is valuable non-obvious disclosure, undercut slightly by the unclear clause 'the form suggests them at once'.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the effect of the call, which is good. But the prose is flowery and partly unclear ('Nobody reads them first unless you ask', 'the form suggests them at once'), spending words on atmosphere rather than sharper operational detail.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers visibility, the confirmation expectation, the image-domain prerequisite, and quota refusal – enough for an agent to call it correctly. Return behavior is not described, but no output schema exists and the annotations carry the safety profile.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as an article uuid obtainable from list_articles. The description adds no syntax or sourcing detail for article_id, so the schema does all the parameter work; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a concrete verb and resource – putting an article live on the customer's site where visitors can read it – which is clearly distinct from save_article or remove_article. It never names the closest sibling (unpublish_article), and the phrasing 'Put an article's words on ... site' is oblique compared with 'publish an article'.

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 gives an explicit precondition for action: 'tell the person what you are about to publish and wait for a yes', plus gating constraints (verified domain for images, plan quota). It does not compare against alternatives such as save_article, unpublish_article, or publish_form, so the routing signal is context rather than explicit when/when-not guidance.

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