Prepend content to an existing esa post

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true; the description usefully qualifies that by saying changes are stored as a new revision, which tells the agent the prior body is recoverable. It also notes wip is optional and otherwise inherited from the post's current state. No permission or rate-limit context, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the two sibling differentiations and the wip note. No filler or repetition.

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 with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, revision semantics, sibling routing, and the optional wip change. Missing only edge behavior such as how postNumber/teamName interact or failure modes, which keeps it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description only reiterates the optional wip parameter, adding no syntax, formatting, or boundary detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (prepend) and resource (existing post body) plus the effect (saved as a new revision). It explicitly differentiates from the two closest siblings, esa_update_post and esa_append_post, so an agent can place it without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternatives and the condition that selects this one over esa_update_post ('does not require fetching the current body first') and over esa_append_post (inserted at start). There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. when to prefer append/update anyway), so it falls short of a full 5.

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