change_article_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'record an approved editorial state change' without clarifying whether the state is actually modified in the system, any side effects, idempotency, or permissions needed. The output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description.

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 sentence, making it concise, but it is too brief to be effective. While it front-loads the action, it omits essential information, so the conciseness is not virtuous.

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 output schema exists and the tool has 2 parameters with enums, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the specific state transitions allowed, prerequisites, or how this tool relates to others like publish_article (which may also change state). The agent has insufficient context 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about the parameters article_id or state. The state enum values are listed in the schema but their meaning and appropriate usage are not explained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states 'Record an approved editorial state change after inspecting the article,' which implies a state transition but uses the vague verb 'record' rather than 'change' or 'update'. It somewhat distinguishes from siblings like publish_article by focusing on editorial state changes, but the purpose is not sharply defined.

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 phrase 'after inspecting the article' provides minimal usage context but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not differentiate from similar tools like publish_article or list_workflows, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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