update_cms_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: an auth requirement (content:publish), a URL-ownership conflict warning, and the caution that a webhook receipt is not completion. It does not state reversibility or what happens to existing live content, so it is strong but not complete.

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 permission, then adds the prerequisite and verification notes. Four short sentences that mostly earn their place, with only minor fragmentation from the line breaks.

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-value explanation is not needed, and the mutation's auth and verification behavior is covered. However, for a no-annotation mutation tool with three completely undocumented required parameters, the definition leaves a notable gap.

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% and all three parameters (article_id, project_id, connection_id) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains what these identifiers are or where to obtain them, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: updating the website from a saved Visibly article. It is distinguishable from siblings like publish_article or edit_content_article, though 'update the website' is slightly abstract about what actually changes on the CMS side.

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 names the content:publish requirement and directs the agent to run get_article_workflow first, with a stated reason (another published article may own the URL). It gives clear context and a prerequisite sequence, but does not contrast itself against publish_article or update_article.

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