supportpages_edit_article

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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: edits to published articles go live immediately, failures are non-destructive to the article and its images, and the repository-connected vs. account-only draft paths behave differently. It does not mention permissions or the background/polling workflow implied by prefer_background and supportpages_get_operation.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core action and preconditions front-loaded. Slightly dense but 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?

Covers the core edit contract and failure semantics well, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. But for a seven-parameter, destructive, open-world tool with a background-execution flag and get_operation/retry siblings, the absence of any async or long-running guidance is a notable hole.

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 14%, so the description must compensate; it explains the intent of instructions and expected_revision and implies article_id via 'Read it first.' The remaining four parameters (workspace, open_when_ready, prefer_background, and the recovery semantics of request_id beyond its own schema note) get no treatment at all.

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 ('Edit an existing article') and qualifies it as instruction-driven rather than a field-level update, which is meaningfully distinct. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling supportpages_update_article, so an agent has to infer which one to reach for.

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 real procedural guidance: 'Read it first and supply its current revision,' plus a conditional rule that repository-connected edits must be sent as instructions and never written locally. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or exclusion, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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