Edit a post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Replaces a post's text' clearly signals a mutation that overwrites existing content, and 'verifies the edit by read-back' discloses a post-write verification step. It does not cover prerequisites or side effects, but for a simple two-parameter edit operation this is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The main operation ('Replaces a post's text') comes first, and the verification behavior adds meaningful detail without bloating the text.

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 mutation tool with only two required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core operation and verification behavior. However, it does not describe the return value, error handling, or prerequisites, and it lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling post-related tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the text parameter is the replacement content for the post, but it does not explicitly explain that postId identifies the target post or provide additional parameter-level context. The parameter meanings are mostly recoverable from names and the description, but not fully explicit.

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, 'Replaces,' with a clear resource, 'a post's text,' and adds the distinctive behavior of verifying by read-back. This differentiates it from siblings like create_post and delete_post by making the edit operation 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?

The description implies the tool is for modifying an existing post rather than creating or deleting one, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. There is no direct contrast with create_post or delete_post, and no conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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