update_article

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and is idempotent, but the description adds useful behavioral context: it uses the Zendesk Translations API and operates on a specific locale. It also discloses a usage requirement (at least one field) that is not present in the annotations. It does not mention permissions or error handling, but the bar is lower due to existing annotations.

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 only two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence provides an essential usage constraint without any unnecessary words. Every phrase adds value, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 the moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, the API used, and a key operational constraint. It does not specify the return value or potential errors, but the combination of annotations and schema covers most of the necessary context, making it suitably complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 describes all parameters, but the description adds a crucial collective requirement ('At least one of title, body, or draft must be provided') that is not obvious from the schema alone. It also clarifies the role of the locale parameter by mentioning the Translations API, enhancing the value beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 ('Update') and the specific resource ('existing Zendesk Help Center article') along with the content fields affected (title, body, draft status). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_article' (create) and 'read_articles' (read), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 context that this tool is for modifying existing articles and includes a specific constraint ('At least one of title, body, or draft must be provided'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the 'existing' wording and the tool's purpose imply when it should be used versus create/read tools, so it nearly meets the 5 threshold.

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