Update an article

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds rich detail: partial update semantics, tags replacement behavior, immediate effect on published articles, API key/ownership requirements, and an error condition. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is appropriately sized with a front-loaded purpose statement, followed by behavioral details, then security/error/return info. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description states it 'Returns the updated article.' It also covers partial update behavior, tags replacement, published-article effects, idempotency, auth requirements, ownership, and an error condition. This is very complete for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that only passed fields are touched (partial update) and that an error occurs if no updatable field is supplied. It reinforces the tags replacement meaning already in the schema but adds the partial-update context.

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 clearly states 'Change the title, body, or tags of an article or draft that already exists.' This uses a specific verb (change) and resource (existing article/draft), clearly distinguishing it from creation or publication tools in the sibling list.

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 description implies usage by specifying 'article or draft that already exists' and discusses effects on published articles, but it never explicitly names alternative tools (e.g., create_draft, publish_article) or states when NOT to use it. Context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are absent.

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