create_article

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), the description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'The article is created as a draft by default to allow review before publishing.' This adds context not captured in the annotation hints, though it doesn't detail error cases or response structure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant words. Every sentence earns its place, with the second sentence providing crucial usage guidance.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the action, the draft default, and the prerequisite section_id discovery. However, it does not mention what the response contains (e.g., the created article with ID), which would improve completeness. Still, the schema is rich and the guidance is solid.

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?

All 8 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the draft default and section_id requirement, which are already present in the schema descriptions. It adds no new parameter-level semantics.

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 'Create a new article in the Zendesk Help Center', identifying the specific action (create) and resource (article). It differentiates from siblings like update_article (modifies existing) and read_articles (reads), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Requires a section_id — use read_articles with include_sections=true to discover available sections.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and how to obtain a prerequisite using a sibling, which is strong guidance.

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