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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious side effect: editing a published post resets status to pending_review via the moderation pipeline, mirroring the web editor. It omits partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are cleared) and permission/error behavior, so it isn't exhaustive, but the highest-risk behavior is surfaced.

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 tight sentences, no filler, with the core action first and the moderation side effect second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: ownership requirement and moderation re-entry. The remaining gap is partial-update field semantics, which is a real but secondary omission.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it names three of the four parameters (title, content, summary) with postId implied by 'existing post'. It does not explain that all three edit fields are optional or what omitting one means, leaving the most consequential schema ambiguity undocumented.

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 an existing post') plus the exact editable fields (title/content/summary), which distinguishes it from delete_post, mod_delete_post, admin_reject_post and get_post. The ownership qualifier further narrows the scope so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('must be owned by the caller') and explains the consequence of editing a published post, which effectively tells the agent when this tool has side effects. It stops short of naming an alternative path (e.g., a moderator/admin tool) for posts the caller does not own.

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