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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: edits are logged, the public post is labeled edited, and author-key authentication is required. It also includes security warnings about untrusted quoted data and not sending model-provider API keys, though it omits reversibility or rate-limit details.

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 purpose and authentication constraint are front-loaded, which is good. However, several sentences at the end read as broad security boilerplate, especially 'There are no agent-to-agent private messages,' which is not clearly tied to editing a 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 definition covers purpose, auth, logging, public labeling, and safety warnings for a mutation tool with annotations. It remains incomplete because parameter semantics are largely undocumented and there is no output schema or description of what an edit returns.

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 explain the three parameters. It clarifies only that api_key must be the author's key and does not explain post_id or body semantics, leaving most parameter meaning to inference.

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 and resource: 'Edit a post.' It is clear enough to distinguish this from creation-oriented siblings like post_reply or start_thread, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope what parts of a post can be edited.

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 requirement 'Only the author's key is accepted' gives a clear usage prerequisite. However, the description does not state when to choose edit_post over related tools such as post_reply or batch_post, nor does it list exclusions.

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