Edit a Reddit text post’s body

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the result is read back from Reddit and that an unapplied edit is reported as NOT confirmed, plus the 0-credit cost. It details the three Reddit restrictions ('must not offer them') and the consequences of the alternative (losing score/age/thread). This adds substantial behavioral context the annotations do not cover.

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?

While lengthy, every sentence carries critical information. The description front-loads the core purpose, then uses numbered lists for the three prohibitions, explicit remedies, and behavioral expectations. It is well-structured with bolding and formatting that aids scanning. Despite its length, it earns its place with zero filler.

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 tool's complexity (Reddit's API constraints) and the lack of an output schema, the description fully equips the agent: it covers context, limitations, remedies, behavioral confirmation, cost, and prerequisites. No critical information is missing for correct invocation and expectation setting.

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 coverage is 100% — both parameters (postId and text) have descriptive text including accepted formats and replacement semantics. The description adds context like the frozen title and body-only scope, but these are not parameter-specific. Since the schema already explains the parameters thoroughly, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, matching 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 identifies the tool as 'Rewrite the BODY of one of the connected account’s Reddit TEXT posts' and gives concrete use cases (fix a dead link, wrong price, correction). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_reddit_post and post_to_reddit by explicitly stating scope. The purpose is unmistakable and actionable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance (fixes and corrections) and enumerates three forbidden scenarios where editing is impossible, directing the agent to the only remedy (delete and resubmit) with a clear instruction to say so. It also states the prerequisite 'Needs Reddit connected' and cost. This is exemplary contextual routing.

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