update_solution_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Update' without explaining side effects, required permissions, whether fields are partially or fully replaced, versioning implications, or impact on published content. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 single sentence is technically concise with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with a nested object parameter and no other documentation. The brevity does not serve the purpose of clarity; it omits essential information about the tool's usage.

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?

The tool has two parameters including a nested object, no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of the article_fields structure. The description provides none of the needed context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, making it severely incomplete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for both parameters, and the description adds no meaning beyond their names. 'article_id' is self-evident, but 'article_fields' is an opaque object with no structure or allowed keys explained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details, especially given the nested object type.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'solution article' in Freshdesk, making the tool's core function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_solution_category' and 'create_solution_article' by naming the specific resource type.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool (e.g., create_solution_article or update_solution_category) would be more appropriate. The description provides no actionable usage context.

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