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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it performs a partial update ('Only provided fields are updated') and triggers a re-sync to WordPress. It also notes the update happens in Notion first, which is not captured in annotations. These details provide useful transparency without contradicting the 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core behavior and the partial-update rule. It is front-loaded with the action and includes only necessary information. No fluff or redundant phrasing exists.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and annotations cover the write/non-destructive nature, the description covers the main behavioral points: updating content/properties and re-syncing. It does not mention error handling, prerequisites (like post existence), or the fact that postId is required, but these are implied by the schema and the nature of the tool. It is adequate for a straightforward update flow, though slightly more detail on side effects could be added.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the crucial semantic that 'Only provided fields are updated,' clarifying that optional parameters are treated as partial updates and not reset if omitted. This goes beyond the schema's description of each field, enhancing the agent's understanding of parameter behavior.

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 'Update an existing post's content or properties in Notion, then re-sync to WordPress.' This specifies the verb (update), the resource (existing post), and the unique aspect of syncing to WordPress, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_post, delete_post, and publish_post. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: it is for updating an existing post, which implies it should be used instead of create_post or delete_post. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for publishing a new post). No exclusions or comparisons are provided, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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