update_article

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns previous values for rollback, and empty parameters preserve existing values. This goes beyond the schema and annotations without contradicting them.

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: one informative first sentence and a structured args list. Every line provides necessary information with no fluff or redundancy. The 'empty = keep' phrasing is efficient and unambiguous.

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 4-parameter update tool with an output schema, the description covers all parameters and the rollback return behavior. It omits error scenarios, permissions, and explicit alternative routing, but annotations and schema fill many gaps. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It clearly explains all four parameters: article_id as 'Article ID or database ID', summary as 'New title (empty = keep)', content with the same keep behavior, and instance as optional. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 a specific verb 'Update' and resource 'Knowledge Base article', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_article, delete_article, and get_article. It also adds a distinguishing detail: 'Returns previous values for rollback', which clarifies the tool's unique purpose.

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 implicitly guides usage by explaining the 'empty = keep' semantics for summary and content, and marking instance as optional. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use create_article instead of update_article) or state prerequisites like the article already existing.

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