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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds substantial context: the Out of Sync state change on published articles, SEO score recomputation and persistence, the 'Free' cost disclosure, and the whole-body replacement semantics. No contradiction with annotations — 'replaces the body' aligns with destructive=true.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place — workflow, syntax, side effects, cost, alternatives, and multi-site handling are all actionable. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the most important caveat (whole body, not a diff). Slightly long, but no wasted words.

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 destructive mutation tool, this is unusually complete: workflow, side-effect state transitions, cost, alternatives, translation handling, and multi-website conditions are all covered. The presence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 good per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value on top: markdown_content gets format rules and image-hosting guidance (upload_article_image), locale gets translation-targeting context, and website_id gets the multi-website trigger. This pushes it above baseline but the schema still does the heavy lifting.

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 precise verb-resource pair ('Replaces the body of a generated article') with a critical disambiguator: the whole body, not a diff. The markdown and image syntax details plus the 'read it first' workflow leave no doubt about the operation. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_article_headline, update_article_slug, and edit_article_with_ai.

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?

Provides explicit when/when-not guidance: names the exact read-before-edit workflow (get_article include_content=true), the alternative for instruction-driven rewrites (edit_article_with_ai), the conditional for translations (locale), and the multi-website condition (website_id with get_account). Nothing is left to inference.

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