updateNews

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), and the description's 'Update' is consistent. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond the name—nothing about whether it does partial or full replacement, effects on existing data, required permissions, or response format. With no other annotations, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits.

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 short, but conciseness is not about being minimal; it's about being efficiently informative. Two words ('Update news') are under-specified, not concise. There is no front-loading of key information because there is no information beyond the name.

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 the tool's complexity (nested objects, required params, enum format, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It lacks any context about usage semantics, parameter responsibilities, or expected outcomes, making it impossible for an agent to call correctly without external knowledge.

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 explain parameter meaning and relationships, but it says nothing about pathParams (format, newsId) or bodyParams (news object with title, summary, uploads, description). The nested structure and required fields are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.

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 'Update news' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, lacking any specific verb+resource clarity beyond the name itself. It does not distinguish from sibling update tools like updateIssue or updateProject, and gives no indication what aspects of news can be 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing news ID or format), and no mention of any conditions that would select this tool over others. The description provides zero usage context.

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