edit_content_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but does disclose two useful behaviors: it creates a backup and checks the revision. However it omits permission requirements, what happens on a revision mismatch, and other side effects of an 11-parameter mutation.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves key terms undefined.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutation with 11 params, zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the definition leaves too much unspecified for an agent to call it confidently.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implies a revision check (mapping loosely to expected_revision) and says nothing about title, content, format, keywords, idempotency_key, or the other fields.

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?

It states the resource (content article) and a mutation verb, but 'Full editor update for editable statuses' is vague about what an 'editable status' is. It also fails to distinguish itself from close siblings like update_article and update_cms_article, which an agent would need to tell apart.

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 only hint of a precondition is the phrase 'editable statuses', with no explanation of which statuses qualify. No when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the several update-related siblings.

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