Update Article

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

The description adds behavioral context about optimistic locking via the version field requirement, which goes beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true (safe for retries) and non-destructive, and the description aligns with these, providing additional useful detail about locking.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core action, the second adds a critical requirement. Perfect conciseness.

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 no output schema and no additional context about return values, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., article must exist), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for a mutating operation. It covers the key locking requirement but omits other behavioral details.

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 already provides a description for both parameters (id and body), including that the body must contain version. The description reinforces this but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the action 'Update an existing article' with a specific resource. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like lexware_create_article, lexware_delete_article, and lexware_get_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 mentions that the body must include the version field for optimistic locking, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate.

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