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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/destructive nature is covered. The description usefully adds the draft-only state restriction, but says nothing about partial updates, permission requirements, or what happens to unspecified fields when only one of content/status is supplied.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the scope constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with annotations that already convey the destructive profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key state restriction. It could say more about partial-update semantics, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so postId, status, and content are fully documented in the schema with an enum and maxLength. The description merely echoes the updatable fields ('content or status') without adding format, constraints, or interaction details, so 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Update the content or status of a Postel draft') and scopes the operation to drafts, which implicitly separates it from publish-post/schedule-post. It stops short of naming a specific sibling as the alternative, so it lands just below the top tier.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance ('Scheduled and published posts cannot be edited'), which tells the agent when this tool will fail. It does not name alternative tools for those cases (e.g., delete-post, get-post), so it is clear-but-incomplete rather than a full routing statement.

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