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

Annotations already declare the write operation as destructive and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it waits for the owner's approval and requires admin privilege for others' posts. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the approval behavior. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 annotations cover safety and schema fully describes parameters, the description includes the critical approval workflow. It could clarify what happens during approval (e.g., immediate rejection or synchronous wait), but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description lists the updatable fields but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (change) and the resource fields (title, text, category) for a post, with clear scope: 'a post you wrote, or any post as an admin'. This distinguishes it from create_post and delete_post without needing to open 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?

It gives a clear usage context by specifying who can update (owner or admin), but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like create_post or delete_post. However, the scope statement is sufficient to guide correct selection.

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