update_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation), but doesn't describe what happens during update: whether partial updates are allowed (vs. full replacement), what permissions are required, if changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information (update operation on knowledge articles).

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 mutation tool with 1 required parameter (plus 5 optional ones), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It states what the tool does at a high level but provides no guidance on usage, no parameter information, and minimal behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 description provides zero information about parameters beyond what's implied by 'update an existing knowledge article.' With schema description coverage at 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), the description fails to compensate. It doesn't mention the required 'article_id' parameter or any of the optional update fields (title, text, category, etc.), leaving all parameters undocumented.

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 an existing knowledge article' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('knowledge article'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_article' (creation) and 'get_article' (retrieval), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_catalog_item' or 'update_workflow'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing article ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new articles), or how it differs from similar update operations on other resources in the sibling list.

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