rx_update_article

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

Annotations mark readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, but the description adds versioning behavior: new text saved as a new version, previous kept in history. It also states it changes data in RX and advises confirming with the user. Good added context beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail permissions or failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by versioning note, prerequisite workflow, and user-confirmation advice. Each sentence earns its place, though the 'Меняет данные в RX' sentence is somewhat redundant with the mutations described.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers workflow, versioning, and confirmation. It's nearly complete; only permissions/error behavior isn't addressed, which is minor.

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%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema (id from rx_kb_search, text as full markdown, title optional if unchanged). The description adds nothing param-specific beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Изменить статью базы знаний' specifies editing a KB article, with fields named (название, текст). Distinguishes from siblings like rx_create_article and rx_kb_article by being the update operation.

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?

Explicit 'Сначала прочитайте статью через rx_kb_article и правьте её текст, а не пишите заново' — names the prerequisite tool and the correct workflow, and says to retell changes to the user before calling. This is clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance naming an alternative sibling.

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