update_article_candidate

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

The description says 'update' (a mutation) but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, an outright contradiction. No other behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions) is provided. This directly violates the annotation.

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 extremely brief, with no fluff, and the main purpose is front-loaded. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, though conciseness itself is good.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with a contradiction, the description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter explanations, side effects, and any disambiguation with the read-only annotation. The only useful context is the verified-status condition, which is insufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only clarifies when 'verified' is appropriate (a hint about the status enum). It does not explain candidate_id, reason, article_url, account_name, or published_at, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 ('update') and resource ('candidate'), and specifies the target column ('status'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling list_article_candidates by conveying a write action. The tool name reinforces the object being updated.

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?

It gives an explicit condition: only mark 'verified' after verification via browser or article tool. This is a clear when-to-do instruction. It does not name alternatives, but there is no competing update tool among siblings, so the guidance is adequate.

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