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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, and the description is consistent with them ('One the section already lists stays where it is' explains the idempotent behavior). It adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: publication propagates at the section's next page load, and the call is refused wholesale when an id is not an FAQ article or the section is 'full'. The remaining gap is that it does not say what 'full' means or where the 100-item cap interacts with existing section contents.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by behavior notes, then Args and Returns. The Args block mostly duplicates a fully-documented schema, which is mild waste, but everything else 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (added_article_ids, already_listed_article_ids, faq_section) and the refusal semantics. Combined with the prerequisite, permission requirement and propagation timing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this mutation correctly.

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%, so section_id, article_ids and site_id are already documented, and the description largely restates them ('at most 100', 'in the order given'). Its only added semantic value is the constraint that every id must be an FAQ article of this help center, which governs article_ids validation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: add FAQ articles (type 'faq') of this help center to the END of a custom section, in order given. The append-only framing implicitly separates it from helpcenter_reorder_faq_section_articles and helpcenter_remove_faq_section_article, though it never names them.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ('To write a new question, create it as an article with type "faq" first') and a permission gate (editor, admin or owner). It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the reorder or remove siblings, so the routing is inferable rather than spelled out.

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