update_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Update a blog article', which implies mutation but does not explain whether it is a partial or full update, what happens if the article does not exist, or whether it is destructive. No additional behavioral context is provided.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It effectively communicates the core purpose. However, it is extremely brief and lacks structural details that could be included without bloating, such as mention of updatable fields or side effects, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or update semantics. A one-sentence description is insufficient for a tool with this complexity and missing structured metadata.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no extra semantic information about parameters, such as relationships, defaults, or effect of partial updates. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the verb 'Update' and the resource 'blog article', making the tool's function unambiguous. However, it does not mention the specific fields or scope of the update, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_article or delete_article, though the resource is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 does not mention prerequisites, situations where update_article is preferred over create_article or delete_article, or any exclusions. There is no contextual advice at all.

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