pfm_update_post

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does highlight the critical full-replacement behavior ('all fields are re-set'), but it omits other important aspects like return values, error handling, or whether the update triggers re-publishing to social accounts.

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 two sentences that immediately state the purpose, then clarify the key behavior. No word is wasted, and it is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 extremely complex schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It fails to explain return values, prerequisites like the post needing to exist, or side effects. For such a complex mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 schema covers 78% of parameters, and the description adds meaning by confirming the parameter set is exactly the same as create and that all fields are re-set. This helps the agent know that all create parameters apply and are fully overwritten, which is useful beyond the raw 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 function: 'Update an existing social post' with the crucial detail that it 'replaces the entire post definition.' This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_post and delete_post.

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 when to use this tool—when updating an existing post rather than creating one—and points to the create schema for consistency. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or warn against partial updates, so it stops short of a 5.

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