shopify_update_articleUpdate a Shopify article's title, body, summary, tags, author, or publish status. Use it to edit existing content and publication settings.
Update an article's title, body, summary, tags, author, or publish status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | HTML body | |
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| author | No | ||
| summary | No | ||
| articleId | Yes | Article GID | |
| published | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing behavioral — it does not say whether the update is partial or full-replace, whether omitted fields are cleared, or what permissions are needed.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the verb and field list front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a mutation tool with a nested author object.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, low schema coverage, and a nested author object, the description should clarify partial-update semantics, the required articleId, and the response shape. None of that is present, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 29% (7 params, 1 required), so the description does carry weight: it names title, body, summary, tags, author, and publish status, covering six of the seven parameters. However it omits articleId (the required one), omits that body is HTML, and gives no format/content constraints, so it only partially compensates.
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 (Update) and resource (Shopify article) and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent can tell it apart from update_page/update_blog/update_product by the resource name. No explicit sibling comparison, but purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as shopify_create_article or shopify_update_blog, and no prerequisites (e.g. that an existing articleId is required). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.