update_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses the pipeline position and the human-gated publish constraint, which is useful. However, it says nothing about merge vs. replace semantics for the 14 optional fields, permission requirements, or failure behavior on a mutation. Note the published restriction is already implied by the status enum in the schema.

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 dense sentences plus a bracketed pipeline tag; each sentence carries distinct information (scope, sequencing, constraint, next step). No filler and the scope is front-loaded.

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 14-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the workflow context an agent needs (pipeline step, precondition, successor tool, hard limit). It stops short of describing update semantics or partial-update behavior, but nothing essential to selecting the tool is missing.

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 14 parameters and the enum constraint. The description names a subset of fields (hook/body/cta/core_message/tags) but 'body' does not exactly match the schema's 'body_md', adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Edit) and resource (master content fields) and enumerates the fields it touches. The 'master' qualifier, plus the explicit next step to create_variant, cleanly separates it from update_variant and other update_* siblings.

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 ordering: use after promote_idea to fill in the draft body, then create_variant once the body is solid. It also states a hard boundary (cannot set status=published; requires human), so an agent knows both when to call it and what it cannot accomplish.

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