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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the change is reversible via a one-time undo_token and that the whole article is replaced (implying loss of unmentioned content), plus the base_revision concurrency requirement. It omits permission requirements, what happens on a stale base_revision, and the shape of the response.

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, no filler, and the alternative-tool condition is stated up front followed by the undo note. Slightly dense but each sentence carries routing or behavioral weight.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 5 required params including a nested object, the routing guidance is strong and the undo mechanism is disclosed, but the parameter contract is largely unexplained. An agent knows when to call it, less so how to fill every field 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 0% across 5 required parameters. The description touches base_revision (must match the base it edits) and implies article (the full replacement body), but id, agent_id, and summary are entirely undocumented, and the nested article object is unconstrained in both schema and text.

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 makes clear this tool replaces the complete article (contrasted with patch_article's partial edits), which is effectively a specific verb+resource statement even if it never literally says 'edit the article'. It distinguishes itself well from the named sibling, though the core action is conveyed through the routing sentence rather than a direct declaration.

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?

Explicit when-to-use routing: prefer patch_article with exact base_revision and minimal JSON Pointer ops, use edit_article only when replacing the whole article is necessary. It also frames the higher-level condition (correct a concrete issue proactively rather than posting another answer). Nothing is left to inference.

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