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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the edits apply to drafts only, and 'the quality checks run again on the saved version' tells the agent edits trigger re-validation. It omits partial-vs-full update semantics (are omitted fields preserved?) and any error behavior for non-draft items.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then field list, then the re-validation note. Dense and waste-free; the '(drafts only)' parenthetical slightly repeats 'before it is approved' but adds emphasis rather than noise.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotation coverage for anything but safety, the description covers the input side well but leaves the response unclear (what does a successful edit return, and are quality-check results surfaced?). Partial-update behavior and non-draft error handling are also unaddressed.

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 only 22%, so the description carries the load — and it does, naming the seven editable fields and adding constraints the schema lacks: body is Markdown, metaTitle ≤70, metaDescription ≤170, tags ≤6. It does not clarify that omitted fields are left unchanged versus cleared, which matters for a 9-parameter mutation.

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 specific verb (Edit) and resource (a draft / article) and pins the scope with 'drafts only' and 'before it is approved', which implicitly separates it from creation (seovyn_write_article) and review (seovyn_review_article). It does not name a sibling outright, so the distinction still requires the agent to infer from the other descriptions.

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?

'Edit a draft before it is approved (drafts only)' gives a clear condition for when the tool applies and implicitly excludes published/approved articles. It does not name an alternative tool or say what to do if the item is already approved, so no exclusions/routing are spelled out.

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