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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Update an article' and lists fields, which implies mutation but does not explain whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens to unspecified fields, or any error behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap and offers minimal transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, followed by a parenthetical list of editable fields. It contains no waste or redundancy. While it lacks additional structural elements like usage examples, it is highly concise and scannable for a simple tool.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, side effects (e.g., whether existing data is overwritten), or conditions under which the update succeeds or fails. The schema covers parameter details, but the overall behavioral context is missing, making this inadequate for an agent to use confidently.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description lists the fields in a more compact, readable form, which adds marginal value, but it uses different names ('research' vs 'custom_research', 'notes' vs 'custom_notes') that could cause slight confusion. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an article'), and lists the specific fields that can be updated (title, markdown, research, notes, keyword). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_article, delete_article, and publish_article. However, it does not explicitly mention that it modifies an existing article, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., the article must already exist), nor does it mention scenarios where create_article or generate_article would be more appropriate. There is no exclusionary context, so this is a 'no guidance' case rather than misleading.

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