update_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', which signals mutation, but does not explain side effects such as whether imageBase64 triggers an ImgBB upload and subsequent thumbnail update, whether changes are reversible, or what response is returned. This lack of detail is insufficient for a mutation tool with multiple field types.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Update' and the object 'existing post'. It efficiently lists the core updatable fields. However, it could be better structured by clarifying that multiple fields can be updated simultaneously and by mentioning the imageBase64 option. Still, it is compact and readable.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too brief. It does not explain how partial updates work (all fields optional except id), the behavior of imageBase64 (upload to ImgBB), whether the thumbnailUrl is mutually exclusive with imageBase64, or what the tool returns (e.g., updated post object). The absence of such critical context makes it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 has 100% coverage, with each parameter having its own description (e.g., 'Updated title (optional)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating a subset of field names (title, description, prompt, thumbnail) and even uses 'thumbnail' generically, which could confuse the reader about the distinction between thumbnailUrl and imageBase64. Given high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't significantly augment parameter understanding.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing post'), and lists the specific fields that can be updated: title, description, prompt, or thumbnail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_post and delete_post. However, it omits the imageBase64 parameter (which updates the image via ImgBB) and the phrase 'or' implies only one field can be changed at a time, whereas multiple fields can be updated. Thus, slightly incomplete.

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 updating existing posts (as opposed to create_post for new ones), and the required id field indicates you must already have a post. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions (e.g., must have the post id, or that imageBase64 is an alternative to thumbnailUrl). Absence of exclusions or alternative tool mentions keeps this at a basic level.

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