Help Center: Add a new article

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

Annotations already declare the write/non-idempotent/open-world/non-destructive profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: the exact endpoint, the auth mechanism ('User API key' via api-access-token header), and the extra_body escape hatch for unlisted fields. It still omits failure/error behavior and any response expectations.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then endpoint, auth, and field notes. The enumerated body-field list largely duplicates the schema and adds length without information, which keeps it from a 5.

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 a 14-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint, auth, external-field escape hatch, and value-encoding rules, which is fairly complete. It stops short of describing the returned article object or error cases, leaving minor gaps for an agent verifying success.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the field list here largely restates the schema. However, the note that text may be sent in Persian and that IDs/numbers may use Persian or Arabic-Indic digits is genuine value-add guidance about how to format parameter values that the schema does not provide.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Add an article to a help center portal') and pins it with the exact endpoint path. This clearly separates it from the neighboring help-center creation tools like gapify_add_portal and gapify_add_category.

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?

Usage is implied by the create semantics and the required account_id/portal_id, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing against alternatives. Since there is no update/delete article sibling, the ambiguity is low, so this is merely adequate rather than strong.

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