Update Article

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation uses optimistic locking via a version field, which implies concurrency semantics not captured by annotations. It also discloses formatting support limits per field, which is operationally relevant.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the locking constraint front-loaded before the formatting caveat. The formatting rule is duplicated verbatim in the body parameter description, so there is mild redundancy, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with a loosely typed nested body (additionalProperties: {}) and no output schema, the description covers the version requirement and formatting but omits what happens on a version conflict, required permissions, and whether unspecified body fields are preserved or cleared.

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% and the body parameter description already enumerates title, type, unitName, price, description and version plus the formatting rule, so the description largely restates structured data. It adds no syntax details for the nested body fields beyond what the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update an article') and adds a distinguishing technical constraint (current version field for optimistic locking). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling update tools such as lexware_update_contact or lexware_update_voucher, but 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 mention of a 'current version field' implies the caller must first fetch the article (e.g. via lexware_get_article) before updating, but this workflow is never stated. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to create/get/delete siblings.

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