Update Article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the draft behavior, which is valuable context about how the tool handles state transitions. However, it doesn't disclose other important behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context about draft handling. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the essential action first.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and some behavioral context (draft handling), but it's incomplete. It doesn't cover authentication needs, error conditions, response format, or how partial updates work. Given the complexity of updating an article with 8 parameters, more contextual information would be helpful for the agent to use this tool effectively.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, types, and constraints. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('existing blog article'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_article' by specifying it updates existing articles rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update-related tools that might exist in the broader context.

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 implied guidance about draft behavior ('If the article is currently a draft and no draft parameter is specified, it will remain as a draft'), which helps understand when to use this tool versus alternatives for publishing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus other siblings like 'create_article' or provide clear exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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