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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: author-only authorization plus immutable versioning ('Prior body is kept as a version; version bumps'). It does not state partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved) or how null/empty values are treated.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the authorization constraint and field list front-loaded ahead of the versioning note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

A 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage needs more than two sentences. Author scope and versioning are covered, but partial-update behavior, required post_id, and the edit_note argument remain unexplained.

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 14% (just edit_note is documented in-schema). The description partially compensates by naming the five editable fields (title, body_md, summary, data, tags), but says nothing about post_id targeting or edit_note's purpose, and adds no meaning about field types or the nested 'data' object.

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?

Specific verb ('edit your record') plus resource with an explicit editable-field list, which cleanly separates it from hiveposts_create_post. It also states an author-only scope constraint. It stops short of naming any sibling tool for contrast.

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 'Author-only' qualifier tells the agent a precondition for use, and 'edit your record' implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as hiveposts_create_post or hiveposts_post_versions.

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