update_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It adds value by mentioning 'partial updates' and 'multilingual content', but does not disclose aspects like destructive effects, auth requirements, or return format. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with action and resource. It is concise and efficient, though it could be slightly more structured or include a brief usage note.

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 has 7 parameters (including nested translated_content) and no output schema, the description is relatively sparse. It covers the basics but leaves many details to the schema. It is adequate for a familiar tool but incomplete for full autonomous use.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'partial updates' and 'multilingual content' adds context but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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'), the resource ('existing Intercom Help Center article'), and adds specificity with 'supports partial updates and multilingual content', distinguishing it from siblings like create_article or delete_article.

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 the tool is for updating existing articles but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like create_article or delete_article. The context is clear, but no exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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