update_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a post, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permission requirements, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, or what the 'dict of update result' contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. It uses three sentences efficiently: one for the purpose, one for inputs, and one for outputs. There's no unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameters but misses behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error cases) and output specifics. For a mutation tool, this leaves too many unknowns for reliable agent use.

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?

The description lists the parameters ('post_id (str), new_message (str)'), which matches the input schema's two required parameters. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional details. The description adds basic type information but doesn't explain semantics (e.g., what format 'post_id' expects or constraints on 'new_message'), resulting in minimal value beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Updates an existing post's message.' This specifies the verb ('Updates') and resource ('post's message'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'post_to_facebook' or 'schedule_post', which also involve post modifications, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing post), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new posts), or comparisons to siblings like 'post_to_facebook' (for new posts) or 'delete_post'. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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