upsert_help_center_article

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: articles are always saved as DRAFT, content must be HTML, and updating requires preserving original HTML. It does not mention side effects like overwriting existing data, but the draft status is clearly communicated.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then expands on important details. The 'IMPORTANT' section is necessary for correct use. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence serves a purpose.

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 (create/update, 7 params, critical HTML preservation), the description covers essential aspects: draft status, HTML requirement, return data, and explicit update instructions. No output schema exists, but the return values are described.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the update behavior (provide helpCenterArticleId) and the HTML requirement, which goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 it creates or updates a help center article, specifies draft status, HTML requirement, and returns data and edit link. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_help_center_articles and get_help_center_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 provides clear context: create by omitting helpCenterArticleId, update by providing it. It gives important update instructions (preserve HTML). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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