blog_updateEdit one of the caller's own posts. Fields left out keep their current value
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The post's id, as given by blog_list | |
| tags | No | New comma-separated tags. Left alone if omitted | |
| title | No | New title. Left alone if omitted | |
| content | No | New body, at least 50 characters. Left alone if omitted |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / content / descriptionPrevious value: -"New post content (minimum 50 characters)"New value: +"New body, at least 50 characters. Left alone if omitted"Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"The blog post ID to update"New value: +"The post's id, as given by blog_list"Input schema / properties / tagsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "New comma-separated tags. Left alone if omitted",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / title / descriptionPrevious value: -"New post title"New value: +"New title. Left alone if omitted"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no read-only/destructive hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior ('Fields left out keep their current value'), which is valuable. Yet it does not cover permission failures, reversibility, or response format, leaving a moderate transparency gap.
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 clauses deliver maximum information per word. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is absolutely no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple update tool with four well-described parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema covers the essential usage. It lacks an explicit mention of return values, but that is a minor omission given the simplicity.
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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the PATCH-like semantics for omitted fields, which clarifies how the optional parameters behave collectively. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.
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') with a specific resource ('the caller's own posts'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like blog_create, blog_delete, blog_list, and blog_read. The ownership scoping is a strong differentiator.
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 establishes a clear context: editing only the caller's own posts, which implicitly suggests this is not for viewing, creating, deleting, or editing others' posts. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusionary guidance, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.