Update post

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructive=false, so the bar is for added context. The description discloses the reset-to-draft behavior for failed/partial posts and the status transition rules, which adds value beyond the annotations. It does not contradict them.

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 sentences with no filler: the lead sentence states the core action, the second gives editability constraints and reset semantics, and the third clarifies status transitions and routes to publish_post. The most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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?

Despite the large platformSpecific nested schema, the description is sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the tool because the input schema fully documents all parameters. It supplies the missing operational context: which post states are editable, reset-on-edit behavior, and the publish_post alternative. No output schema exists, but for an updating tool this is acceptable.

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%, placing the baseline at 3. The description adds a nice coarse summary of updatable fields and references the status enum behavior, but it does not add parameter syntax or format details beyond what the comprehensive input schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing post') and enumerates the mutable aspects: content, schedule, media, labels, status, and platform-specific settings. The second half clearly distinguishes it from publish_post and implies the create_post counterpart.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use statement ('Use this when the user wants to edit an existing post.') and a when-not condition ('use publish_post to publish immediately'). It also constrains usage to draft, scheduled, failed, or partial posts, naming an alternative tool where relevant.

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