Update an existing esa post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It explains that updating can include shipping by setting wip to false, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly mention that the tool modifies existing data, but the word 'updates' implies mutation. No contradiction.

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?

The description is two sentences long, no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with usage guidance and alternatives. Very efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, but the tool is a standard mutation; agents might infer the returned object. The description adequately covers usage and parameter semantics but does not mention return value. Given the tool's complexity (9 params, nested objects), the description is largely complete.

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 each parameter has a description. The description adds value by clarifying that 'set wip to false' ships the post and recommends using esa_get_teams for teamName. This extra context raises the score above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool updates an existing post, naming the updatable fields (title, content, tags, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning esa_append_post, esa_prepend_post, and esa_ship_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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives: shipping a post via 'set wip to false' is preferred over esa_ship_post when updating other fields simultaneously, and append/prepend should be used for adding content to start or end.

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