blogger_posts_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the entire post content is replaced, but does not mention side effects such as clearing omitted fields, the effect of the 'publish' or 'revert' flags, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the key concept of 'full update' and 'replaces the entire post content.' Every word contributes to the meaning; there is no fluff or redundancy. This is a model of concise, structured description.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, what happens to fields not passed (e.g., labels), the interaction of the publish/revert flags, or how this differs from patch in terms of required fields. The description leaves too many gaps for the agent to understand the full update semantics.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only reinforcing the 'full replacement' concept. It does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., labels replacing the existing set) or the meaning of optional flags in the context of a full update.

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 it performs a 'full update' of an 'existing blog post' and that it replaces the entire content. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'patch' operation, though it does not explicitly name the alternative. The verb and resource are specific and 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 usage for full replacement scenarios via the phrase 'full update' and 'replaces the entire post content.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of a partial update (e.g., blogger_posts_patch) or any conditions/exclusions. Usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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