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

Annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it limits edits to text/caption (and YouTube-specific fields), lists platform constraints, and requires the published post ID from original publish via SendIt. 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear definition, a compact supported/not-supported list, and a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool with six heterogeneous parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers selection context (supported platforms, published posts, post ID requirement) and points to schema details for parameter specifics. It does not explain success/failure responses, but that is not essential given annotations and the simple nature of the edit operation.

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%, with clear descriptions for all six parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, except for the platform support list that clarifies which fields apply to which platforms (e.g., 'YouTube (title/description/tags)'). This is helpful but not essential given the schema already includes 'YouTube only' notes.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Edit a published post on a supported platform' and explicitly lists supported and unsupported platforms, distinguishing it from related tools like edit_scheduled_post. It clarifies that it updates text/caption, with platform-specific fields like YouTube title/description/tags.

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 description provides strong usage context by specifying it applies to published posts, requires the published post ID from original publish, and lists supported vs. unsupported platforms. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use edit_scheduled_post for scheduled posts'), but the 'NOT SUPPORTED' list and requirement for a published post ID give clear when-to-use guidance.

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