Update Post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The word 'Replace' adds real value by signaling full text overwrite rather than a merge, but nothing is said about permission requirements, what happens to existing media/attachments, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it leaves obvious questions unaddressed for a destructive mutation.

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 and all parameters are documented, so the description needn't cover returns. However, for a destructive, open-world mutation it omits the critical operational detail of whether replacing the text drops existing attachments and what authorization the Page requires.

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 page, message and post_id are each documented with format examples and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline here.

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 specific verb ('Replace') and a precise resource ('the text of an existing Page post'), which cleanly separates it from create_post, delete_post and get_post. It stops short of naming a sibling or explaining the replace-vs-patch distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (Page ownership/permissions), and no mention of alternatives such as create_post when the post does not exist. The agent must infer all routing decisions.

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