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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already convey (destructiveHint true, readOnlyHint false). It does not mention partial-update semantics or side effects; those are only implied by the schema descriptions, not the tool description itself.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short lines. It front-loads the core purpose and does not waste words, though the 'Guidance' line is somewhat redundant with the title.

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?

Given the high complexity (16 parameters, nested objects, enums), the description is very thin and lacks a high-level overview of what fields are updatable or that it supports partial updates. However, the schema provides thorough parameter explanations, so the description does not need to carry that burden entirely.

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 100% per the context signals, and the description text adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. The baselines for high coverage apply, so a score of 3 is appropriate even without param info in the description.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Update article') and specifies the target resource ('one CMS article by article id'), giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools like cms_update_event, but the resource type is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cms_create_article or other update tools. It lacks any contextual advice like 'use this for modifying an existing article' or a comparison to creation or deletion.

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