Update draft 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 reveals the non-obvious reset behavior for approved drafts, which is critical for the agent to understand the tool's impact. Other details (permissions, idempotency) are omitted, but the most important behavior is disclosed.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Edit a draft's text') and then adds a conditional side effect. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for the agent to select and invoke the tool. It covers the main purpose and a significant behavioral nuance, though it does not mention return values or error handling, which are less critical here.

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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both id and text, so the description adds little semantic value beyond restating that text is edited. The reset behavior relates to the tool's effect, not to parameter meaning, so this dimension remains at baseline.

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 tool edits a draft's text, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_draft, approve_draft, reject_draft, and publish_draft by indicating the editing action.

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 modifying a draft's text and explicitly notes a key side effect: editing an approved draft resets it to draft status. This provides context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude scenarios.

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