social_media_posting_edit_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which communicate that this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It only says 'Edit post', providing zero value beyond the structured 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?

While the description is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It consists of only a two-word phrase that contains no useful detail. It is not structured or front-loaded with key information, and the brevity is not a virtue because it omits all valuable context.

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 complexity of this tool—18 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and platform-specific constraints mentioned in the schema—the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the edit semantics, platform limitations, or any operational expectations. The agent has no guidance beyond the raw schema, which is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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%, meaning all 18 parameters have descriptions in the input schema. According to the rubric, a high coverage (>80%) establishes a baseline of 3 even without parameter information in the description. The description itself offers no parameter-specific explanations, so it does not increase the score, but it also does not need to compensate.

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 'Edit post' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name (social_media_posting_edit_post). It provides no additional specificity about the resource or scope, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like social_media_posting_create_post or social_media_posting_delete_post. It is only a vague restatement of the intended action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. For instance, it does not clarify when editing is appropriate versus deleting or creating a post, nor does it mention any relationship to other social media posting tools.

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