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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation behavior is covered. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context, such as implying a patch-style update via 'any editable field'. It does not detail side effects beyond modification, but with annotations that is acceptable.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds a notable detail. There is zero redundancy, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 12-parameter schema with full descriptions and an output schema, the brief description is sufficient. It states the purpose and key capability, while the schema handles parameter semantics and the annotations handle safety. More detail would be redundant.

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% and parameter descriptions are rich (e.g., image references upload_image, authorId notes owner/admin access). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('existing blog post'), and highlights a distinguishing capability ('including its author'). This differentiates it from create_post, delete_post, and get_post without needing to inspect the schema.

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 establishes a clear context: it is for modifying existing posts, not creating or deleting. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The context is strong enough for most agents to select it correctly.

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