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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds two valuable behavioral facts: only non-null fields are touched, and seliee_article_faqs is a full-list replacement with a documented entry shape. It still doesn't mention auth/publish-state requirements or what the response looks like, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and lookup mechanism, followed by the update semantics and the one non-obvious field behavior. No filler.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the riskiest behavior (FAQ list replacement) and update semantics, but omits what is returned, error behavior for missing articles or duplicate slugs, and whether either identifier is required (0 required params in schema).

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It covers the two lookup identifiers and explains the FAQ replacement semantics and entry shape, but leaves slug, type, title, content, keywords, and description undocumented (e.g., slug uniqueness or validation rules).

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?

Specific verb and resource: edit fields of an existing seliee_article, with the lookup keys (article_id, article_uuid) named. An agent can immediately distinguish it from create_article/delete_article, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with update_article_keys or publish_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 states the precondition (article must exist, identified by id or uuid) and the partial-update rule, which implies usage. However there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over update_article_keys, publish_article, or get_article first to inspect current values.

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