update_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('update'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, error handling, idempotency, or whether the update is atomic. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word is necessary.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but omits details like what the response contains or any side effects. For a complex tool, a bit more completeness would be beneficial, though not severe given the schema descriptions.

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%, with each parameter well-described in the schema itself. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that only changed fields should be included, but does not provide additional semantic or usage context beyond what is already in 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 states 'Update an existing article by its ID', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'create_article' beyond the verb, and the resource is the same as many read tools.

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 instruction 'Only include fields you want to change' implies partial updates, providing some usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information compared to alternatives like 'create_article' or 'get_article_by_id'.

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