twitter_article_update_title

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of 'Requires an authenticated session with write capability' and 'Returns the updated article object' adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. It also mentions the DRAFT/PUBLISHED state, which is useful.

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 four sentences and under 50 words, front-loading the core action. There is minor redundancy (mentioning 'authenticated account' and later 'authenticated session'), but each sentence serves a purpose: action, required inputs, auth requirement, and return value.

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 simple mutation tool with 6 params, 2 required, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation, auth prerequisite, input source, and return behavior. It does not discuss error conditions or rate limits, but these are not expected for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the need for id and title but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions; it does not compensate for optional parameters like proxy_url or auth_token, which are already well-documented 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?

The description opens with 'Set or replace the title of a DRAFT or PUBLISHED article AS your authenticated account,' which uses a specific verb (set/replace) and resource (title of article). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like twitter_article_update_content and twitter_article_update_cover_media by focusing solely on the title.

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?

Provides clear context: the article id comes from twitter_article_create or twitter_article_list, and the tool targets title-only updates. It does not explicitly state 'use update_content for body changes,' but the title-specific wording and sibling differentiation make the intended usage clear.

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