supportpages_prepare_article

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it does not execute generation, it may or may not create a preview depending on environment, it returns a URL that must be surfaced before launching the writer, and it honors a saved background/foreground preference. It does not explain why destructiveHint=true is set for what reads as a capacity/preparation step, which leaves a residual question.

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?

Six sentences that interleave tool behavior with agent-workflow directives ('show that link immediately', 'report started after launch'). The capacity-check constraint is front-loaded, but the mixture of description and orchestration instructions adds bulk without tightening the tool's identity.

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 explained, and the plan_limit/local/remote behaviors are covered. Still, for an 8-parameter write-flagged tool with low schema coverage, the absence of any parameter guidance leaves the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 only 38% (3 of 8 params carry descriptions), so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It names no parameters (title, workspace, section_id, etc.) and adds no semantics beyond the generic mention of a 'personal preference' that maps to prefer_background/open_when_ready.

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 concrete behavior: it checks account-wide hosting capacity, prepares a task brief, creates a preview when supported, and returns an editor_url. It distinguishes itself from generation tools by explicitly saying 'This does not execute generation.' However, the leading framing ('Check account-wide article hosting capacity') sits in tension with the name prepare_article, and it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like preview_article or create_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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call this before writing content or rendering images') and a clear when-not case ('In a local folder there is no capacity check or preview'). It also specifies terminal behavior on plan_limit ('stop; no writer should launch'). It stops short of naming specific sibling alternatives for the preparation step.

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