supportpages_complete_article

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, destructive behavior; the description adds substantial context beyond them: local-mode output (Markdown + screenshots, returns a path), idempotent retry after upload failure without regeneration, and post-call handling of the editor link and show_to_user text. It does not explain what a retry actually overwrites or what makes the call destructive, which is a gap given destructiveHint=true.

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 purpose is front-loaded well, but the description runs long and mixes purpose, preconditions, return-value handling, and end-user UI instructions into one block. The imperative handling rules are useful but could be tightened; several clauses repeat the same 'don't infer completion' idea.

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 fully specified, yet the description helpfully covers editor-link vs. local-path output and the show_to_user/open_when_ready follow-up. The main incompleteness is the total absence of parameter documentation despite a 0% coverage schema.

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?

Three parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions run_id, completed, or workspace. It implies a 'run' exists but gives no meaning, format, or source for the identifiers, so the schema-driven baseline of 3 is not met and the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource: finalize and upload this run as a draft, with concrete scope (host writing/validation completed). However, it does not differentiate itself from similarly-named siblings such as supportpages_finalize_article, supportpages_upload_draft, and supportpages_publish_article, so an agent cannot rule those out from the description alone.

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?

Gives a clear entry condition (after successful host writing and validation) and an explicit exclusion (never call for a partial or interrupted writer), plus a useful clarification that it must still be called even when the writer handshake already delivered the draft. It stops short of naming alternative tools for the finalize/upload/publish stages.

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