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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the draft-isolation rule for published posts, a preview_url valid 30 minutes, preview_expires_at, and the security warning that anyone with the link can read the draft until expiry. It does not restate the destructiveHint=true implication (that omitted elements are removed), which is left to 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?

Three tight sentences; the mutation effect is front-loaded, and the preview token warning follows. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return values (preview_url, preview_expires_at) and their lifetime. Minor gaps: it doesn't warn that the update replaces content (omitted elements removed) or mention permission requirements, but the core call path is covered.

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 50%; the description only reinforces the 'revision' parameter's purpose, while the content fields (html vs elements, slug rules, featured_image_url) are documented in the schema, not the description. Adequate, but no extra semantics added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update editor content') plus the optimistic-concurrency requirement ('with its current revision'), which separates it from create_content and publish_content. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Changes to a published post remain drafts until explicitly published' implicitly routes the agent to publish_content afterwards, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or mention of create_content vs update_content.

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