Update article

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the critical non-obvious behavior that content is replaced wholesale, not patched, and instructs to send the full body. It also states partial-update semantics for other fields. However, it does not mention the return value or pass-through behavior of extra_fields.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and the crucial content-replacement warning is set off with NOTE. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 9-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and the main content-replacement hazard. It omits the response/return shape and does not explain advanced fields like extra_fields or interactions among state, is_wip, and is_draft, leaving some 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?

The schema already covers 5 of 9 parameters with descriptions, including content and category behavior. The description adds the general partial-update rule for all fields and reinforces the content replacement caveat. It does not elaborate on undocumented parameters like title, state, is_wip, or is_draft beyond that general rule.

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 specific action 'Update an existing article' and clarifies scope with 'Only the fields you provide are changed.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_article and delete_article by focusing on existing articles.

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?

It provides an explicit editing workflow: 'to edit, get_article first, modify, send back the full body.' This tells the agent when to fetch before updating. It does not explicitly contrast with create_article for new articles, but 'existing article' implies that distinction.

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