Update Help Center Article

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

Annotations exist (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) and the description adds context by specifying what is updated (metadata) versus what is not (content). It doesn't elaborate on the destructive nature, but the annotations already cover that. The description adds value beyond 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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with purpose and exclusions. Extremely 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 complexity (10 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the tool's purpose, scope, and limitations adequately. It points to sibling tool for alternative use cases, completing the contextual picture.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description lists the types of metadata fields (draft, promoted, labels, tags, visibility, section, sort position) which provides a helpful overview beyond the schema. It doesn't detail each parameter, but the schema itself has descriptions for many parameters. The description compensates for the coverage gap.

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 explicitly states the tool updates article metadata (draft, promoted, labels, etc.) and clarifies that it does NOT update content, directing to update_article_translation. This clearly distinguishes from siblings and gives a precise verb-resource pair.

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 says when to use (update metadata) and when not to use (for title/body content) and provides the alternative tool (update_article_translation). This gives clear guidance on tool selection.

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