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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by specifying it is a patch operation (partial update) and explains how to clear additionalInstructions. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first defines the action and parameters, the second distinguishes from the sibling. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 0% schema coverage and presence of output schema (not shown), the description compensates for some parameters but does not explain projectId. It also does not mention return values. The description is sufficient for basic use but lacks full completeness.

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 explains wordLimit and additionalInstructions but does not mention projectId or type explicitly. However, it implies type by saying 'one content type's'. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should cover all parameters, but it misses projectId and type explanation, making it partially inadequate.

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 it patches a content type's wordLimit and/or additionalInstructions, with a specific verb ('patches') and resource ('one content type's wordLimit and/or additionalInstructions'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool betterpost_update_project by noting that project-wide preferences live there.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for per-content-type settings) and when not to use it (for project-wide preferences, use betterpost_update_project). It also provides guidance on clearing additionalInstructions by passing an empty string.

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