postit.update_body

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the operation type (append/overwrite) but provides no details on consequences such as whether append adds to the end, whether overwrite replaces entirely, what happens if the postit does not exist, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it sacrifices 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?

Given the moderate complexity (nested object, 4 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage), the description is far from complete. It omits critical parameter context (dir, name, mode default) and behavioral edge cases. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the tool remains under-specified for reliable agent usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only implies 'content' as the body and 'append/overwrite' as the mode, but fails to explain 'name' as identifier, the optional 'dir', or the default mode. The description adds marginal semantic value beyond the schema's raw fields.

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's function: appending or overwriting a postit's body. The verb 'append/overwrite' plus resource 'postit's body' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like postit.read, postit.rename, and postit.delete.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing postit's content, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like postit.create or postit.rename. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and context.

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