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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses two important behaviors: the partial-update contract ('Pass only the fields you want to change') and the overwrite risk for tags ('replaces entire array'). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs and is not present in the schema or 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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: action/status, partial update, tags behavior, and a status check pointer. No filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly for the common path: check status, pass desired fields, and understand tags replacement. It does not mention alternate tools for non-editable statuses or the return/error behavior, but the explicit pre-step mitigates the main risk.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the partial-update model and the replacement semantics of tags. It does not explicitly describe mediaIds, body, or postType behavior, though the schema's types/enum and the partial-update statement cover much of the remaining need.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Updates a draft content post') and immediately narrows scope with the status constraint. This clearly distinguishes the tool from create/delete/schedule siblings in the campaignstack namespace.

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 states when editing is allowed ('Only posts in draft or scheduled status can be edited') and gives a concrete pre-step ('Use campaignstack_get_content_post to check current status before updating'). It does not explicitly name create/schedule/delete as alternatives, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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