va_update_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'WRITE OPERATION' conveys mutation intent, but the description doesn't note whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether all article fields get overwritten, any auth/permission requirements, or behavior on non-existent article IDs. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

Extremely concise at one sentence. The 'WRITE OPERATION' marker is somewhat redundant with the verb 'Update', but the overall structure is efficient and front-loaded with the core action.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a nested 'article' object parameter, this description is under-specified. It doesn't explain update semantics (partial vs. full replacement), response/return values, or what happens with the nested 'article' object. The nested object and write nature demand more explanation than provided.

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 only 33% (only 'article' has a description). The description itself provides no parameter details beyond the tool name. However, the 'article' parameter's description ('Fields to update, matching the Zoom KM API schema') is at least somewhat helpful, and kbId/articleId are self-evident identifiers. The description adds no additional parameter context, keeping this at the baseline without improvement.

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+resource ('Update an existing knowledge base article'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like va_create_article and va_get_article through the 'Update' verb. However, the 'WRITE OPERATION' phrase is redundant with the verb and adds little value.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that create should be used for new articles or that get/va_get_articles are for reading. With many sibling VA tools (va_get_article, va_create_article, va_get_articles, va_sync_knowledge_base), explicit when/when-not guidance would help the agent disambiguate.

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