update_article

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost ('Credits: 0'), required authorization scope ('Needs content:write'), optimistic-concurrency behavior ('expected_revision comes from get_article; a mismatch returns revision_conflict with the current revision'), and a conditional input requirement ('With content, format (html|markdown) is required'). It stops short of describing rollback/reversibility or the returned payload, though an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope in the first sentence, then layers cost, permission, concurrency, and gating constraints in short clauses. No filler sentences; every line carries operational information.

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 9-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the risky parts an agent needs: permission, cost, revision conflict handling, format requirement, and the ineligibility of published/approved articles. The main gap is the unexplained optional parameters (particularly idempotency_key), but overall it is sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: it explains expected_revision's provenance and failure semantics and the content/format coupling with enum values. It says nothing about title, keywords, project_id, meta_description, or idempotency_key (notably why an idempotency key matters for this mutation), leaving several parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Edit a draft or rejected article') and constrains the scope to two article states, which is meaningful next to siblings like update_cms_article and edit_content_article. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (drafts and rejected articles), when not to (approved or published articles, with the alternative being 'hand over a new draft instead'), and the prerequisite permission (content:write). The revision-conflict path also tells the agent what to do when the call fails.

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