change_article_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that approval triggers the normal CMS webhook and enumerates the permission and budget prerequisites for queueing. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and authorization context an agent needs before calling a write tool.

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?

Only two sentences and both are dense with operational detail. The opening 'Review an article' is the one soft spot, being somewhat imprecise, but nothing is padded.

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 described, and the permission/webhook behavior is covered. Gaps remain: no sibling differentiation for a tool sitting among many article-mutation tools, and no coverage of two of three 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the new_status parameter (approved and queued semantics and their requirements) but ignores rejected and archived enum values entirely and says nothing about article_id or project_id.

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 name and enum make the intent clear (changing an article's status to approved/rejected/archived/queued), but the opening sentence 'Review an article' is vague and arguably misleading for a mutation tool. It never states the full verb+resource scope or distinguishes itself from siblings like publish_article or update_cms_article.

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 useful when-context for two of the four statuses: approval needs content:approve and queueing needs spending:execute plus several account-level conditions. However, it says nothing about when to choose this tool over publish_article, update_article, or submit_article_draft, and rejected/archived paths are unexplained.

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