publer_update_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but omits critical details like required permissions, whether updates are partial or full replacements, side effects on existing media or scheduling, and error conditions.

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, well-structured sentence of 8 words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making the purpose immediately clear with zero redundant or irrelevant content.

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's mutating nature, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return value (e.g., updated post or success status), whether the update is partial (only provided fields change), or interactions with other tools (e.g., can you update after scheduling?). The lack of output schema further increases the need for these details.

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 for all 4 parameters. The description lists three of them ('text, media, or scheduling') but adds no additional semantic nuance beyond the schema's own descriptions. This meets the baseline for a schema-complete tool.

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 verb 'Update', the resource 'existing post', and the specific attributes that can be modified ('text, media, or scheduling'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like publer_create_post (create new) and publer_delete_post (remove).

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?

While the description implies the tool is for modifying existing posts, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like delete+recreate, nor does it specify prerequisites or limitations (e.g., can only update posts in draft status).

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