update-post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling for invalid post IDs, or rate limits. It mentions Gutenberg blocks but doesn't explain what happens if content format is incorrect. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from technical details, but this is minor given its brevity.

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 complexity (mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. While the schema handles parameters well, the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use, especially for a write operation in a system like WordPress.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema: postId as 'Post ID' and content with detailed format examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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') and resource ('WordPress post') with specific technology context ('using Gutenberg blocks'). It distinguishes from create-post (creation vs update) and get-post/search-posts (read vs write), though not explicitly. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from siblings like 'update-post' vs 'create-post' by mentioning it modifies 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing post ID), when to choose update-post over create-post for modifications, or any limitations. The description assumes context but provides no explicit usage rules, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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