Update Article Section

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

Discloses that the section heading is preserved and not part of replaced content, the default format choice for fidelity, and the server-side reconstruction. Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior; description adds valuable context without contradiction.

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 concise, with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and includes important details in a logical order. Every sentence contributes value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and parameter usage. It explains the replacement process and format caveats. A brief note on return values (e.g., updated article) would improve completeness, but the current description is sufficient for an agent.

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 100%, so the description's parameter details are supplementary. It explains the purpose of section_index (0-based from get_article_outline) and the implications of the format parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Replace the content of a single section of an article in a given locale, keeping the rest of the body intact.' It specifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_article_translation or reorder_article.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use 'html' vs 'markdown' formats, including a warning about round-trip issues. It explains the server-side process. However, it could mention prerequisites like calling get_article_outline to obtain section_index.

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