article_set_data

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds important behavior: keys starting with 'internal_' are rejected client-side. It also mentions the HTTP method, aligning with annotations. No contradictory information.

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 brief: two sentences with a clear structure. The first sentence states the action and HTTP method, the second provides an alternative and a constraint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 required parameters and lack of output schema, the description covers the core operation, key deletion alternative, and a security constraint. It does not mention overwriting behavior, but that is implied. Combined with schema descriptions, it is sufficiently complete.

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 only 25%, and while the value parameter's description is detailed (non-null, nested storage), the main description does not explain site, article_id, or key beyond their basic role. The description adds minimal semantic value for these parameters.

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 tool sets a single article.data.<key> value, with the HTTP method included. It differentiates from the sibling tool article_delete_data, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use article_delete_data instead (for deletion) and warns about rejected 'internal_' keys. It lacks guidance relative to other data-related siblings but provides sufficient context for common use cases.

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