update_article

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and potential side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds the 'partial-update' behavior, clarifying that only specified fields are changed. However, it does not state whether omitted fields reset or remain, nor any authentication or rate-limit details.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy. Front-loaded with 'Partial-update' which is the key differentiator. Every word adds 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?

No output schema is provided and annotations are minimal. The description does not cover post-conditions (e.g., whether the update is instantaneous, if the article is republished, or return values). Given the mutation with 6 parameters, more detail would be beneficial.

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 33% (only title and content have descriptions). The description lists the update categories (title, body, cover image) but does not explain the three different cover image parameters (cover_media_id, cover_image_url, cover_image_base64) or their relationships. It adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for low coverage.

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 it performs a partial update on an existing Twitter/X article, listing the specific mutable aspects (title, body markdown, cover image). This distinguishes it from create_article and other sibling 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 description implies usage for updating existing articles but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create_article, delete_article, or publish_article. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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