Update article

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that unspecified fields are preserved (partial merge), and that body format depends on prior retrieval via get_article. No mention of permission requirements or what happens to published state transitions.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the merge semantics and the prerequisite read. No filler.

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?

Reasonable for a 6-parameter mutation, but gaps remain: the title/summary-to-name/description mapping is unresolved, no output schema or return-value hint is given, and consequences of toggling 'published' are not described. Adequate but not complete.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming the updatable fields. However, it uses 'title' and 'summary' while the schema parameters are 'name' and 'description', leaving a mapping ambiguity that the agent must infer, and articleId provenance is only covered in the schema.

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 ('Update an article') plus the exact fields it can change, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_article or delete_article, but the implicit read-then-write framing helps.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow prerequisite: read the article first with get_article(format='html') when editing the body, and clarifies partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed'). It stops short of naming when not to use it (e.g., use create_article for new content).

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