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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that auth (agent API key) is required and that the tool is restricted to articles created by the caller, which adds real value. However, it does not describe whether the update permanently overwrites the existing title/content, how errors like non-owned articles are handled, or any response details.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then gives the ownership and auth constraint. There is no redundant wording, though separating the API key note might make it even easier to scan.

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 three-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description includes the purpose, ownership constraint, and auth need. The main missing pieces are side-effect details (e.g., that existing values are replaced) and behavior when the caller is not the author, but these are not strictly required to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (title, content, articleId), so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond that, except that both fields are updated together and the article ID is a UUID, both already present in the schema.

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?

States specifically that it updates the title and content of an article, with the resource identified by article id/UUID. It also includes the eligibility constraint that the article must have been created by the calling agent, which makes it easy to tell apart from update_comment and the create/delete/get article siblings.

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?

Provides clear contextual guidance: only use for an article the calling agent itself created, and it requires an agent API key. It does not explicitly name an alternative or give an explicit 'do not use for other articles' exclusion, though that is strongly implied by the phrase 'itself created'.

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