supportpages_create_article

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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true); the description goes beyond them by disclosing the safe default (draft), the hosted/local execution split, that local responses return an existing prepared writer task, and request_id reuse for recovery. It still says nothing about the destructive aspect the annotation flags.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the six sentences are mostly load-bearing, but there is minor redundancy ('never launch a local writer for a hosted operation' largely restates 'hosted projects run in SupportPages').

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 execution-routing plus publish semantics are covered. However, with 9 parameters and near-zero schema coverage, the definition leaves most parameter meaning and sibling routing to inference.

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 only 11% (just request_id), so the description must compensate but largely does not. It clarifies publish semantics and re-explains request_id, but leaves title, workspace, description, article_type, open_when_ready, prefer_background and recommendation_id entirely undocumented in both places.

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+resource ('Create one illustrated article') and adds scope via 'using the permitted execution location.' An agent can tell it creates an article, though it never names how it differs from close siblings like supportpages_prepare_article, supportpages_finalize_article or supportpages_create_video_walkthrough.

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 explicit conditional guidance: hosted vs local execution routing, the default-to-draft rule even with auto-publish enabled, and 'set publish only for an explicit user publication request.' It does not, however, point to any alternative sibling or say when to prefer prepare/finalize flows instead.

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