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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only says the title is changed. It does not state whether this affects a draft or published version, whether it requires authorship or project permissions, or whether the change is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant disclosure gap.

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 short sentence with zero waste and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for any qualifying context, which is a minor structural limitation rather than a verbosity problem.

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?

With only two required parameters, an existing output schema, and a simple scope, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation with no annotations, it should say more about effects and permissions than a bare one-liner.

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% – both 'name' (with a 1-255 character constraint) and 'article_id' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Изменить заголовок статьи'), which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like replace_article_text or set_article_content that modify other parts of an article. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling handles other update operations, but the single-purpose scope is clear.

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 use this instead of replace_article_text, set_article_content, or other article-modifying siblings, and no mention of any prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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