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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds that only provided fields change, which implies partial update semantics, but it does not disclose potential side effects, like whether updating scheduledAt triggers scheduling or if updating status to 'scheduled' validates other fields. At least it does not contradict annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 one sentence, which is concise. It front-loads the key action ('updates an existing post') and adds the scoping constraint about only provided fields. No wasted words. However, given the tool's complexity, a slightly longer description could have earned a 5, but for a single sentence it is efficient.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and only 11% schema coverage, so the description should compensate with more context. It lacks guidance on how parameters interact, such as the relationship between scheduledAt and status, or what happens when publishTargets is updated. The output is also not described, but with no output schema, the description could have mentioned return values. The description is minimally sufficient but leaves significant gaps.

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 only 11%, meaning the description must compensate for many parameters. The schema provides detailed types and enums for most parameters, but the description adds no explanation of what each parameter does. For instance, 'publishTargets' is described in the schema but not in the description. The description only mentions that provided fields change, which is generic. With low coverage and no extra parameter context, the description fails to add value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('günceller' – updates) and the resource ('mevcut bir gönderi' – existing post). It also notes that only provided fields change, which adds useful scoping. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tools like xplanner_update_idea or xplanner_update_folder, but the resource is clearly different, so it earns a 4.

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 implies usage: it is for updating an existing post, and it says only provided fields change, which hints at a partial update. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use xplanner_publish_post vs this) or when not to use it (e.g., if post is already published). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so this is a minimal viable score.

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