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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), the description discloses real behavioral traits: it returns the created id and title, fires an `article.created` webhook (an external side effect not visible in annotations), defaults to unpublished, and only creates a public page when published. This adds meaningful context the annotations do not carry.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core create behavior, then publishing semantics, then the translation nuance. Almost every clause earns its place; slightly dense but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description handles the two genuinely tricky behaviors (publication default and translation grouping), with the remaining gap being the many undocumented optional parameters.

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 only 27% (3 of 11 params), so the description does useful work by deeply explaining `originalArticleId` (original vs sibling id), `locale`, and `published`. However, `slug`, `author`, `format`, `categories`, and `description` remain undocumented in both places, so it only partly compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a new Polyblog article") plus a scope ("in the given blog"), and it distinguishes itself from sibling update_article/generate_article by emphasizing creation of a new article. An agent can identify the operation without opening any schema.

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 clear conditional guidance: pass `published: true` to also publish, and pass `originalArticleId` + `locale` to create a translation rather than a separate article. It does not explicitly route the agent away from alternatives like generate_article or create_blog, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative coverage.

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