Update a post

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

Discloses the sparse-update behavior (only passed fields changed), the validation constraint (at least one field besides id), and the required scope. No annotations are provided, so these disclosures are valuable. However, it omits return-value behavior and side effects like the published_at stamp, which are covered in the schema's status description.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Each sentence adds information: what it does, the field requirement, and the required permission.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage contract: partial update, minimum field requirement, and scope. It could explicitly advise using publish_post/unpublish_post for status-only changes, but that guidance exists in the schema's status parameter. Return-value information is missing but not critical.

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 only 30%, so the description needed to compensate. It adds the key semantic that all optional properties are updatable individually, and the 'at least one field besides id' requirement clarifies the role of the id parameter. It doesn't describe individual parameters, but the names are self-explanatory and the partial-update contract ties them together.

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?

Clearly states it partially updates an existing post, distinguishing it from create/delete. 'Only the fields you pass are changed' adds precision. Also includes the required scope.

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?

Provides clear context that it is a partial update and requires at least one non-id field, plus posts:write scope. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like publish_post/unpublish_post, which are referenced in the schema's status description rather than the tool description.

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