update_articleUpdate the title, body, or tags of an existing article or draft. Only the fields you pass are changed; omitted fields keep their current values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Article or draft ID | |
| tags | No | Replace the tag list | |
| title | No | New title | |
| body_markdown | No | New body in Markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / body_markdown / descriptionPrevious value: -"Replacement body as Markdown. Replaces the whole body, not a patch."New value: +"New body in Markdown"Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Article or draft id from a listing tool. This is the id, not the slug."New value: +"Article or draft ID"Input schema / properties / tags / descriptionPrevious value: -"Replacement tag list, up to 10. Overwrites the existing tags entirely."New value: +"Replace the tag list"Input schema / properties / title / descriptionPrevious value: -"Replacement headline."New value: +"New title"Input schema / properties / body_markdown / descriptionPrevious value: -"New body in Markdown"New value: +"Replacement body as Markdown. Replaces the whole body, not a patch."Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Article or draft ID"New value: +"Article or draft id from a listing tool. This is the id, not the slug."Input schema / properties / tags / descriptionPrevious value: -"Replace the tag list"New value: +"Replacement tag list, up to 10. Overwrites the existing tags entirely."Input schema / properties / title / descriptionPrevious value: -"New title"New value: +"Replacement headline."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful PATCH semantics – "Only the fields you pass are changed; omitted fields keep their current values" – which the annotations do not convey. It still omits that tags are replaced wholesale rather than merged, but this is a solid addition beyond structured data.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the partial-update contract front-loaded immediately after the action statement. Every clause earns its place.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essentials. It is slightly short on prerequisites and does not clarify that tag updates are destructive replacements, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.
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 schema already documents id, title, body_markdown, and tags with their constraints. The description restates the field names but adds no format, length, or replacement-syntax detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Update the title, body, or tags of an existing article or draft") and even enumerates the mutable fields. The word "existing" implicitly separates it from create_draft, but it never names a sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over create_draft or publish_article, nor any prerequisites (e.g. authentication or draft-vs-published constraints). Usage is only implied by the phrase "existing article or draft."
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.