Update post

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: patch semantics (omitted fields stay unchanged), that body replaces the entire text, and that Skool marks the post as edited. Permission requirements are also stated. It omits failure modes (invalid post_id, non-admin attempt) and any response/return behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its scope in the first sentence, followed by behavior and permissions. The closing clause about own posts/admin restates the first sentence, so one sentence is partly redundant, but overall there is little waste.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers permission, partial-update semantics, and the visible side effect of being marked edited. Only rare edge cases and any return value remain undocumented, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and each of the 5 parameters is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the patch contract ('fields you leave out stay as they are', 'body replaces the whole text') but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the parameter descriptions already say.

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 (change title, text or category of a post) plus the scope of who may do it, and clearly separates it from siblings like create_post, delete_post, pin_post and update_event. The 'as Skool's Edit post does' anchor makes the intent unambiguous.

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 the precondition that selects this tool (your own posts, or any post as a group admin) and indirectly points at list_posts for post_id via the schema. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. use delete_post to remove, create_post to add), so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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