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

The description adds one useful behavioral constraint beyond annotations: published posts cannot be updated. However, it does not disclose whether this is a partial update where omitted fields remain unchanged, or whether all provided fields replace existing values. For an update tool with 24 optional parameters, that semantic is important for correct invocation. The annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive.

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 short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately states the most important limitation. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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's complexity—24 parameters across many platform-specific configs—the description is minimal but sufficient for basic selection. It identifies the resource, the allowed updates, and the critical published-post restriction. However, it lacks guidance on update semantics (partial vs full replacement) and on how the various connectionIds and configs interact, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent handling complex multi-platform updates.

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 92%, so the schema already explains the parameters well. The description adds broad categories like 'caption, schedule, accounts, media, or platform configs,' which help orient the agent, but it does not provide parameter-level details beyond what the schema already contains. This is an acceptable baseline given the high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Update') and the exact resource ('a scheduled or draft post') with the specific fields that can be changed: caption, schedule, accounts, media, or platform configs. It further distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding published posts, which sets it apart from publish_draft and create_post. This gives an agent a precise understanding of what the tool is for.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool: when a scheduled or draft post needs modification. It also provides a key exclusion: cannot update published posts. However, it does not explicitly point to alternative sibling tools like publish_draft or create_post, so the routing guidance is slightly incomplete.

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