supportpages_update_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is known. The description goes well beyond them: it discloses what is preserved (images, publication state), that published changes go live immediately, that repository access and publish permission are required, and conflict-handling behavior ('never overwrite browser changes'). This is rich context, though it could be more explicit about the exact scope of destruction.

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?

Five sentences, all substantive, front-loaded with the action and prerequisite. No filler, no restating of the name, every clause adds operational value (modes, preservation, auth, immediacy, conflict).

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers auth, conflict, immediacy, and content modes. It is nearly complete for a destructive mutation tool; the main gap is the undocumented article_id/workspace parameters.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It meaningfully explains the structured_content vs body/title modes and ties expected_revision to get_article, but it says nothing about article_id or workspace syntax/meaning. Partial compensation for a 6-parameter schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 (save/update) and resource (article) with a scoping qualifier ('exact content update using the current revision'). It clearly describes the operation. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings like supportpages_edit_article, create_article, or upload_draft, which an agent would want to disambiguate.

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?

'Using the current revision from get_article' establishes the prerequisite read step, and 'Structured articles use structured_content; Markdown articles use body and optional title' tells the agent which mode to use. 'On conflict read again' gives recovery guidance. Missing explicit 'use this instead of edit_article when...' routing, so it falls short of a 5.

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