Update a post

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses high-value behavioral traits: partial-update semantics (omitted fields untouched), an elevated permission requirement for publishing, optimistic-concurrency behavior (REVISION_CONFLICT), and the recovery workflow (re-read and reapply). This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the most important fact (partial update), then publishing, then concurrency safety. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the critical path (partial update, publish, concurrency). Gaps remain around scheduling/status transitions and how tags replacement or authorId reassignment behave, but the core call path is well supported.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry more weight. It does explain the two most consequential parameters (status's publish semantics and expectedRevision sourced from get_post), but the remaining 13 parameters (seo sub-fields, tags, bodyFormat, scheduling fields, authorId) are left to the schema alone.

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 states a specific mutation with precise patch semantics: 'Changes only the fields you send; anything omitted is left alone.' Combined with the name/title (update_post), an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_post or delete_post.

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 gives concrete usage context: publishing happens here via status "published", which requires the content.publish grant, and expectedRevision should be passed to guard against stale writes. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative sibling for a given scenario.

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