update_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies mutation, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., are they preserved or reset?). The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update an existing blog post'), making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects), provide usage context relative to siblings, or explain what the tool returns. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but other critical context is missing.

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 adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., 'content' vs 'content_file'), provide examples, or clarify edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 resource ('an existing blog post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_post' (new posts) and 'delete_post' (removal), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'change_post_status' which might overlap in some contexts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'change_post_status' for status-only updates or 'create_post' for new posts. It mentions 'existing blog post' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., post must exist) or exclusions (e.g., cannot create new posts).

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