api_update_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful partial-update context ('Overwrites the fields you pass'), though it leaves ambiguous whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared and says nothing about authorization.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the operation and its partial-update nature come first. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the schema's 'Omit to keep current' notes, keeping it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter surface is fully documented in the schema. However, for a destructive mutation the description omits prerequisites, failure behavior, and whether omitted fields are preserved versus nulled, leaving clear gaps.

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%, so post_id, title, body, and user_id are all documented with types, ranges, and 'Omit to keep current' semantics. The description contributes no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already supplies, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a clear verb (update) and resource (post) and pins down the semantics as a PATCH-style partial update, which distinguishes it from create_post and get_post. It stops short of referencing siblings by name, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as api_create_post for new records. The PATCH mention describes how the update works rather than when to reach for this tool over a sibling.

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