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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts: the previous version is retained as a revision, and a published document changes publicly immediately. That materially softens the destructive flag and warns of a live side effect. It stops short of saying whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared.

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 short sentences: what changes, what is preserved, what the public impact is. The mutation and its scope are front-loaded with zero 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 destructive 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is replaced, revision retention, and immediate public effect. It is only missing return-value information (e.g., resulting revision identifier) and confirmation of partial-update semantics.

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 50%: slug, site, and lang are documented in-schema while title, markdown, and description are bare. The 'and/or' wording usefully signals partial updates are allowed (matching slug as the only required parameter), but it doesn't define whether an omitted title/markdown clears the field or preserves it, nor any format constraints on markdown.

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?

It uses a specific verb ('Replaces') plus the exact resources modified (Markdown body, title, description) and scopes it to a single existing document. It implicitly separates itself from create_document and generate_document, though it never names a sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for editing an existing document rather than creating one. There is no explicit guidance on when to use publish_document/unpublish_document alongside it, or on preconditions such as the document already existing.

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