devto_update_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the DEVTO_API_KEY requirement, the fact that published=False unpublishes/drafts the article, and that it returns a confirmation with a link. However, it does not cover error behavior, permission requirements, or whether omitted fields are left unchanged or overwritten.

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 leads with the purpose and auth requirement, then presents a clean, scannable Args list covering every parameter, and ends with a brief Returns note. No sentence is wasted, and the structured format makes the content easy for an agent to parse.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics, authentication, and the return shape, and an output schema exists. The main gap is the absence of guidance on ownership restrictions and whether the article must belong to the authenticated user, which is relevant for an update operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for all 9 parameters, including the article_id requirement, the optional nature of each field, the 'up to 4' constraint on tags, and the meaning of published flags. This goes well beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing article or draft on DEV.to.' It explicitly targets existing articles, which distinguishes it from the sibling devto_create_article, and the resource is unambiguous.

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 or drafts, and 'existing' subtly excludes creation via devto_create_article. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it, leaving the routing partially to inference.

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