update_post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: an authentication prerequisite (web session) and the important default that omitting publish leaves publication state unchanged. It stops short of explaining what the destructive aspect actually destroys (e.g., whether unspecified fields are cleared).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the conditional publish logic, with no filler. Minor redundancy with the schema's publish wording keeps it out of the top band.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the publish/schedule flow is covered. However, for a destructive, 11-parameter mutation tool, the description never clarifies whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent needs resolved before calling it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description's publish explanation ('publish=true to publish now, or publish=true plus scheduled_for to schedule') largely restates the schema's own publish description, adding little new meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Update or publish an existing post') plus the underlying API surface ('Patreon's web editor API'), which is enough to distinguish it from create_post and delete_post. It does not, however, address the overlap with the sibling publish_post tool, so sibling differentiation is 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?

It states a prerequisite ('Requires a web session') and gives conditional semantics for the publish flag, which is useful. But it never says when to prefer this tool over publish_post or create_post, nor any when-not-to-use condition, leaving tool selection largely to inference.

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