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

Beyond the annotations (which already mark this destructive/non-idempotent/open-world), the description discloses the concrete side effects: status change to PUBLISH with today's date, registration with the Google indexer, and clearing of website article-list caches. That is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot 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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb-object first, identifier parenthetical second, side effects last. No filler, and every clause (status, date, indexer, cache, merchant scope) 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?

For a non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes and the key side effects. Gaps remain: whether the article must be in a particular prior state, whether re-publishing resets the publish date, and any failure behavior are unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters and signals an either-or identifier choice ('article_id' or 'article_uuid'), which is meaningful. However it gives no format/type hints and, critically, does not clarify that at least one identifier is required (schema shows neither required).

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 (publish) and resource (seliee_article), and spells out what publishing means (status PUBLISH, publish date today). It distinguishes itself from the other publish_* siblings purely by resource, so an agent can tell it apart from publish_page/publish_collection without ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool's own action and says it's scoped to the caller's merchant, which is useful context. But it never states when to use this versus alternatives like edit_article (modify) or clear_article_cache (refresh), nor any prerequisites such as the article needing to be in draft. Usage is implied by the self-evident 'publish' verb rather than guided.

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