update_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it updates an existing article, but does not mention whether it is a partial update, what happens to unspecified fields, required permissions, reversibility, or response format. This is a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, so these gaps are significant.

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 a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential information. While the sentence is not redundant, it is under-specified, making this 'conciseness' more like minimalism than effective compression.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the effect of the update, which fields are updatable, or any behavioral details. An agent would have to rely on parameter names and external knowledge to use it correctly, which is insufficient for a production environment.

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_id and category have schema descriptions). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It fails to explain the meaning of text, title, keywords, short_description, or the update behavior for these fields, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names alone.

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 a specific action ('update') on a specific resource ('knowledge article'), which distinguishes it from create_article, get_article, list_articles, and publish_article. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar update tools for other resources (e.g., update_catalog_item), though the resource name makes the scope obvious.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_article or publish_article. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent cannot tell whether this tool is appropriate for a given task without inferring from context.

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