Submit categorized article patches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions submission and critical constraints (patches must non-overlap, each patch must include a comment assigned to a topic), which are valuable behavioral details. However, it omits any information about side effects (e.g., whether the submission is final, if it triggers validation, if it overwrites existing content), rate limits, or error behavior. This is a partial disclosure, but the key operational constraints are highlighted.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the 'Primary article-edit workflow' context, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy and conveys the critical usage guidance without clutter.

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?

The tool is complex (nested objects, 8 parameters, no output schema), so the description must provide enough context for correct invocation. It covers the essential workflow (submit base plus patches, comments with topics) but lacks details about return values, error handling, or post-submission behavior. Given the complexity and absence of an output schema, this is a moderate level of completeness—enough to start using it but not enough to anticipate edge cases.

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?

The schema has 8 parameters with 0% coverage in the description, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the key parameters: 'base document' (base), 'patches' (patchSet), and 'comments' with 'primary topic' (highlighting the requirement for topicId in comments). However, it does not clarify other parameters such as title, format, locale, topics, baseHash, or initialPageSize. The description gives enough context for the core workflow but leaves several parameters unexplored, so it partially compensates for the schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Primary article-edit workflow' with a specific action 'Submit' and resource 'categorized article patches.' It distinguishes from the sibling tools by positioning itself as the primary edit workflow and explicitly contrasts with 'returning a giant rewritten document or textual diff in chat,' which helps an agent choose this over a generic response.

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 description provides explicit guidance: 'Use this instead of returning a giant rewritten document or textual diff in chat.' It also clarifies the primary use case and mandates constraints (unchanged base, non-overlapping patches, comments with topics). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'article_review_edit_patch' or 'article_review_update_patchset,' so the agent may wonder when to use those instead. The word 'Primary' partially addresses this but lacks a clear 'when not to use' statement.

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