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

The description discloses important behaviors: screenshots kept in markdown are retained, those removed are deleted, and order in markdown defines final order. The annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint: false) and no destruction (destructiveHint: false), so the description adds valuable context beyond just 'update'.

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 very concise with no wasted words. All four sentences provide essential information: purpose, screenshot placeholder syntax, screenshot lifecycle, and the recommended workflow. Information is front-loaded well.

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 the tool's lack of output schema and moderate complexity (2 params, one with placeholder syntax), the description covers the core function and screenshot behavior. It could mention what happens if markdown is invalid or provide example usage, but it is reasonably complete.

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% (both parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the markdown parameter includes <SCREENSHOT {id}> placeholders and their behavior, which goes beyond the schema's generic description. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 clearly states the tool updates article text content from markdown and describes the use of <SCREENSHOT {id}> placeholders. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like add_article_media or update_article_media, but the purpose is specific enough.

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 provides a clear workflow: get the article first, modify the markdown, then call this. It does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the workflow guidance is helpful.

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