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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses meaningful behavior: omitted fields retain their values, keyword_id=null clears the keyword, generated rows are refused, and the updated row is returned. This gives an agent a clear model of the operation's side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core edit operation and the most important semantic (omitted fields keep current values), then covers exclusions and alternatives in short, separate sentences. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description completes the context needed for correct invocation: it explains behavior for edge cases (generated rows, null keyword, multi-website), returns the updated row, and routes date changes elsewhere. No essential guidance is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 83%, the description adds high-value semantics not in the schema: the partial-update merge behavior, the null-clearing effect of keyword_id, the refusal on already-generated rows, and the need to pass website_id for multi-website accounts. This materially improves parameter understanding.

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 specific verb ('Edits'), a resource ('a pending scheduled article'), and the exact fields affected (headline, brief, target keyword, products). It also differentiates from siblings like reschedule_article and update_article_content by naming them explicitly.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only pending scheduled articles, and routes already-generated rows to 'edit the generated article instead.' It also names the alternative for date changes (reschedule_article) and the website_id prerequisite when an account has multiple websites.

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