Update an existing esa post

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but the description compounds that by disclosing that body edits replace content rather than append, which is the key behavioral distinction driving the sibling routing. It stops short of covering auth/permission needs or the conflict-checking implications of originalRevision, so it is useful but not complete.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier, then field inventory, then two routing rules. No sentence is filler and the most decision-relevant guidance (ship vs. append) comes before the less critical detail.

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?

Adequate for invocation of a nine-parameter destructive mutation with a nested object: the agent knows what it does, which fields it can change, and where to go for append/ship alternatives. The gap is originalRevision conflict handling, which is passed through without any behavioral explanation, and no output schema exists to clarify the response.

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 nine parameters including wip, bodyMd, and originalRevision, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the five primary mutable fields and clarifies the ship semantics of wip, but adds nothing for message, teamName, or the nested originalRevision conflict object.

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 and resource ('Updates an existing post in an esa team by post number') and immediately enumerates the mutable fields. This is clearly distinguishable from esa_create_post, esa_ship_post, and esa_append_post/esa_prepend_post, which the description names directly.

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 explicit routing: use wip=false to ship rather than esa_ship_post when also updating other fields, and use esa_append_post/esa_prepend_post when only adding content at the start or end of the body. Both the when and the when-not are spelled out with named alternatives.

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