update_blog_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that malformed CTA shapes are rejected by the server, external featured image URLs are auto-downloaded on publish, empty string removes the image, and that `cta`/`sidePageInfo` are mutually exclusive. It also warns against putting CTA markup in the content body.

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 long but each sentence delivers practical value. It front-loads the core edit capability and then delves into CTA specifics with clear, structured guidance. Minor redundancy exists in the CTA explanation, but overall it is efficient given the tool's complexity.

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 15-parameter tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all major behaviors, field interactions, and constraints. It thoroughly explains the two advanced CTA modes, status semantics, image handling, and server-side validation, giving an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already covers 73% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the CTA object structure, how to clear it, the mutual exclusivity with sidePageInfo, and the behavior of featuredImageUrl. The first sentence also groups the many fields into coherent categories, making the tool's parameter space easier to digest.

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 uses the specific verb 'Edit' and clearly enumerates the editable resources (title, content, excerpt, SEO fields, status, author, category, images, CTA), making its purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_blog_article, schedule_blog_article, or publish_blog_article by focusing on modification rather than retrieval or scheduling.

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 clear guidance on when to use specific features: 'Set status='published' to make it live' and the choice between `cta` for raw URLs and `sidePageInfo` for linking to existing side pages. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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