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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by noting ownership/permission restrictions, no deletion capability, and partial-update semantics ('send only the fields you want to change'). It stops short of explaining response shape or error cases, but the most important behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler. Every sentence adds meaningful information.

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 core purpose, ownership constraint, and partial-update semantics are covered, which is enough for basic use. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of parameter details, response information, and error behavior leaves gaps. It is adequate but not complete.

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 13% (only slug is described). The description adds the partial-update instruction, which gives some semantic context, but it does not explain the other seven parameters. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate more, but it doesn't.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('your existing blog posts by slug'), clearly distinguishing it from publish_post (create) and search (read) siblings. The scope is explicitly limited to the user's own existing posts.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (editing your own existing post) and gives important exclusions: only the original author can edit and deletion is impossible. The partial-update instruction is useful guidance, though no sibling tool is explicitly named as an alternative.

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