article_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool modifies an article, which is already implied by the name. It does not explain whether updates are partial or full, how status transitions work, what error conditions exist, or what the response contains.

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 no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It repeats the tool name without adding useful information, failing to earn its place. For an 8-parameter mutation tool, a more informative description would be both concise and valuable.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 3 enums, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not explain the update semantics, required identification via 'id', or any constraints or side effects. The rich schema helps, but the description alone leaves major gaps for an agent deciding on invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each of the 8 parameters (id, body, tags, style, title, status, language, research_refs) having meaningful descriptions. The description text itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already provides the necessary meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '아티클을 수정합니다' translates to 'Modifies the article,' which directly restates the tool name 'article_update.' It conveys the basic action but provides no differentiation from sibling tools like article_create or delete_content, and doesn't specify what aspects of the article can be updated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as article_create, article_get, or article_list. The description gives no context about prerequisites, partial updates, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer everything from the name and schema.

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