supportpages_upload_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot convey: idempotent re-upload and rejection of changes touching published articles.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the core action plus target is front-loaded before the safety and rejection caveats.

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 no explanation, and the safety/idempotency profile is covered. Still missing: what the 'article bundle' actually is or where it comes from, and how the required slug relates to it — notable for a tool that takes only a slug but claims to upload a bundle.

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%: the single required 'slug' parameter carries only a pattern and maxLength, with no explanation of what it identifies. The description never mentions the slug at all, so it does not compensate for the 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?

Specific verb (Upload) plus resource (finalized article bundle) plus target (bound SupportPages.io project) and a state qualifier (unreviewed draft). This clearly separates it from supportpages_publish_article by outcome, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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?

'Repeating an upload is safe' and 'Published-article changes are rejected' give useful operating context, and the draft framing implies this follows finalize/prepare and precedes publish. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over supportpages_finalize_article, supportpages_prepare_article, or supportpages_publish_article.

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