update_article_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two behaviors — dependent fields get auto-completed, and temporaryCoverImageUrl is fetched and attached — but it does not explain the core mutation semantics an agent needs: whether omitted optional fields are preserved or wiped, that title/content/siteSlug/postId must be re-sent on every update, or any permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the image-URL tip is a well-scoped conditional follow-up. "Automatically complete dependent fields" is slightly vague for how much weight it carries, keeping it short of a 5.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what will be overwritten, which fields are mandatory on every call, or what the image auto-upload expects, so it is not equipped to invoke this correctly without guesswork.

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% across 17 parameters, and the description explains only one of them (temporaryCoverImageUrl), adding genuine value by tying it to the DALL-E temporary-URL workflow. The other 16 — including linkPolicy, canonicalUrl, categoryId, imagePrompt, authorRole — get no semantic help from either schema or description, a large gap at this parameter count.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Update an existing draft") and adds the side effect of completing dependent fields. It contrasts implicitly with the create_article_draft sibling through the update/file targeting (postId), but never names an alternative explicitly. Clear enough for selection, but not sibling-routing.

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?

Usage is only implied: you use this when you already have a draft to modify. One useful conditional rule is given for temporaryCoverImageUrl (pass a DALL-E URL to auto-upload), but there is no guidance on when to prefer update vs create_article_draft, or what happens when only some fields are supplied.

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