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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the record is created in UNPUBLISH state and setting publish_datetime causes an automatic future publish. It does not mention slug-collision handling or whether website id/uuid is mandatory, which would complete the picture.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the creation and its resulting state, then parameter semantics. No filler; nearly every clause conveys information. The parameter list is packed into two long sentences, which is efficient though slightly cramped.

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 12-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers creation state, scheduling side effects, and several parameter groups, which is solid. Still missing are the required fields and any note on whether a website identifier is needed, both of which an agent needs to call this correctly on the first try.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 12 parameters, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it defines the date format for publish_datetime, explains that website is supplied via id OR uuid, that collections accept ids and/or uuids, and gives the FAQ entry shape {summary, text}. Title, content, slug, keywords, language and description are left undocumented, so some gap remains.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new seliee_article') plus the resulting initial state (UNPUBLISH), which clearly separates it from edit_article or publish_article. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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?

The scheduling sentence ('the article is published automatically on that date') gives useful context about when this tool's behavior extends past creation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick create_article over edit_article/publish_article, nor any statement of prerequisites such as requiring a website identifier.

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