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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful trait: the existing link, votes and comments are preserved across the update. It still omits anything about permissions, reversibility, or whether the old version remains accessible.

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 waste, with the core action front-loaded and the preservation guarantee second. Nothing redundant.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key preservation behavior but leaves gaps an agent would want: authentication/ownership requirements, what happens to unspecified fields, and how kind is chosen or defaulted.

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 75% (code, note and post_id are documented; kind has only an enum). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it neither compensates for the undocumented kind field nor clarifies defaults, which is the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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: publishing a new version of an existing ArtiGram post. It clearly differs from post_artifact's likely create semantics, though it never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 phrase 'one of your ArtiGram posts' weakly implies this is for updating content you already own, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of post_artifact as the alternative for new posts, and no prerequisites such as ownership.

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