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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: the HTTP method (PATCH), the author and lock constraints, and that the URL slug never changes. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and permissions.

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 brief, but the first sentence 'The post after the edit' is cryptic and adds little value; it could be misinterpreted as a response description. The second sentence is useful and front-loads constraints, but the overall structure could be clearer with a direct statement like 'Edits an existing post'.

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?

The description covers the key usage constraints (author, lock, slug) and the HTTP method, but omits any explanation of the parameters (body, title, lang) and their optionality. With 4 parameters and no output schema, a more complete description would list what can be edited and that only the postId is required.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters beyond the postId appearing in the URL path. It does not mention that body, title, and lang are editable fields or that they are optional. The agent must infer their meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 tool edits a post ('Edit your own post') and provides constraints (only author, not locked, slug unchanged). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, reply, get, and list. The first sentence is slightly ambiguous ('The post after the edit') but the overall purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states conditions for use: only the author can edit, and only while the post is not locked. These are important usage restrictions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the distinct name and title make it clear this is for editing an existing post, not for creating or replying.

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