pylon_update_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key partial-update behavior: 'Only provided fields are modified.' However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, default publish behavior, or what happens with nested visibility_config, leaving significant behavioral 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 a single, clear sentence that opens with the core purpose and immediately adds the key behavioral constraint. No wasted words; it is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema. The description is minimal, relying heavily on the schema for parameter details. It lacks context on return values, error conditions, prerequisites (like required IDs), or behavior of the publish flag. While the schema fills gaps, the description itself does not provide enough contextual completeness for a tool of this complexity.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds value by clarifying the semantics across parameters: only provided fields are modified, meaning omitted parameters retain their existing values. This overrides individual parameter descriptions and is a meaningful addition.

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 action ('Update an existing article') and its scope ('in a knowledge base'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_article, get_article, and delete_article by specifying the update verb and the partial-update behavior.

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 clear context: this tool is for updating existing articles, not creating new ones. It also notes that only explicitly provided fields are modified, which is a useful usage directive. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, though the sibling tool names make this fairly obvious.

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