Update an author

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description discloses key behavioral traits: the default byline flag side effects (clearing prior default, leaving none), that nothing becomes public until a separate publish call, and the required secret key scope. This is valuable context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 efficiently structured: one sentence for purpose, two for side effects, one for public visibility, and one for auth. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the most critical contextual aspects: side effects, auth scope, default byline behavior, and non-publication. However, it does not specify the return value or error behavior, which would be useful given there is no output schema. Missing parameter explanations for name and is_ai_generated also limit full completeness.

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 dives deeply into the is_default parameter, explaining its side effects. However, with schema coverage at 57%, the description does not compensate for unnamed parameters like name and is_ai_generated, which lack schema descriptions and are not mentioned. Some parameter semantics are added, but significant gaps remain.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource pair: 'Update an author.' It then clarifies scope by noting site content changes and that publishing is a separate call, distinguishing it from publish-related tools. The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 strong context: it changes site content, requires a specific auth scope, and explicitly states publishing is separate, which implies when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_author or delete_author, so it falls short of a full when/when-not guidance.

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