article_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior: only the owner can update and others get 403. It also explains the optional title behavior (fallback to '# ...' in content) and that content is Markdown. While it doesn't mention the success response format, the ownership restriction and error case are significant additions beyond the schema.

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 compact, packing the core action, parameter details, and a strong warning into three short clauses. Every sentence contributes value: the PUT endpoint and id source, content/title rules, and ownership restriction. No filler or 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?

For a three-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the main contextual needs: where to find the id, how the title is handled, and the ownership restriction. It could mention the success response shape, but that's not critical given the simple scope and the sibling tools provide surrounding context.

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 schema covers id and content with descriptions, but title has none. The description adds crucial semantics: title is optional and if omitted is taken from a Markdown heading in content. It reinforces that content is Markdown and id comes from article_list, aligning with schema descriptions, but adds the default title logic.

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 action: 'Обновить СВОЮ статью по id' (update your article by id), specifies the HTTP method and endpoint (PUT /api/articles/{id}), and distinguishes itself from siblings like article_publish (create) and article_get (read). It explicitly mentions 'СВОЮ' (your own), differentiating ownership scope.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on how to obtain the id ('id бери из article_list') and references article_publish for title behavior, implying that tool is for creation. It also warns that only the owner can update and non-owners will receive 403, which is a clear constraint. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use article_publish for new articles', the reference provides sufficient context.

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