action_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a privileged mutation ('admin action') but does not disclose consequences, reversibility, permission requirements, or the multi-step confirmation flow beyond what the confirm/confirmation_data schema fields already state. It adds some context (admin-level, bulk-targeted) but falls short of what an unannotated mutation tool needs.

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 with no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the prerequisite discovery step follows immediately. Every sentence 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 an unannotated mutation tool with a nested confirmation_data object and no output schema, the description is only minimally sufficient. The two-step discover-then-execute pattern is hinted at but the confirmation retry behavior (requires_confirmation) is left entirely to the schema, so an agent gets an incomplete operational picture from the description alone.

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 ids, action, confirm, and confirmation_data. The description only confirms the tool targets 'selected instances' and adds no syntax, format, or naming details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Execute an admin action on selected Article instances'), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling actions_article, which is described as the discovery tool. An agent can distinguish this executor from the discovery and bulk siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear workflow context by directing the agent to actions_article to discover valid actions before calling this tool. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over bulk_article or how it relates to update/delete_article, so the routing is partial rather than complete.

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