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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false and destructive=false, and the description adds meaningful context: edits never reach anyone until the post goes out, so it runs without confirmation, plus the Cotlet API key auth requirement. This exceeds what the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loads the action and scope, then layers the draft-only and no-confirmation behavior. Slightly wordy ('as you would in the post editor', 'runs without asking first') but each sentence carries useful information.

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 output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral facts an agent needs: draft-only scope, no recipient impact, and auth requirements. Return value expectations are not addressed, but none are needed here.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description echoes the editable fields (title, body, audience) but omits 'tier_ids' which the schema lists, so it adds little beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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a specific verb and resource ('Change the title, body or audience of a draft or scheduled post') and scopes it to unpublished posts. An agent can tell it apart from publish_post or create_post, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Clearly states the condition for use ('Edits a post that is not published yet... Published posts are not changed.'), giving a strong when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use for published posts.

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