update_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the action ('更新文章状态') and parameter meanings, but lacks behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly explain the tool's purpose and parameter meanings. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it highly efficient in structure.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, error handling, or return values. For a tool with 4 parameters and potential side effects, more completeness is needed to guide effective use.

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%, providing detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value by listing field and mode mappings (e.g., 'field: 0=星标'), which are already covered in the schema. It doesn't add syntax, format, or usage nuances beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('更新' meaning 'update') and resource ('文章状态' meaning 'article status'), specifying it's for updating article status. It distinguishes from siblings like get_article (read) or set_article_label (label-specific), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings. The purpose is specific but lacks full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to use set_article_label instead for labels or share_to_published for publishing. Usage is implied only through parameter descriptions, with no explicit when/when-not statements.

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