Update an existing knowledge base article in production using its ID, with options to change title, content, visibility, category, and display order.
ATENCAO: altera producao. Atualiza um artigo da base de conhecimento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| article_id | Yes | ||
| visibility | No | ||
| category_id | No | ||
| display_order | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It includes the warning 'altera producao' (changes production), which discloses that this is a mutating operation with production impact. However, it does not state permissions required, whether updates are partial or full replacements, reversibility, or response behavior.
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 short sentence with an upfront warning. It is concise and front-loaded with the most critical caveat, though it is written in Portuguese while the tool name and sibling names are English, which may affect readability.
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?
For a tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It does not clarify what fields are updatable, whether it is a partial update, what the response is, or any prerequisites. The minimum viable details are missing.
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 0% and the description mentions no parameter details. It fails to explain the meaning of article_id, title, content, visibility, category_id, or display_order, so an agent gets no help beyond the raw property names.
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 identifies the action ('Atualiza' = updates) and the resource ('artigo da base de conhecimento' = knowledge base article). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_article or read_article, but the verb+resource is specific enough to convey the core purpose.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tomticket_create_article or tomticket_read_article. The only extra context is a warning about production changes, which is a cautionary note rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.