ghost_update_newsletter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'updates' and lists field categories, but does not disclose whether it performs partial updates, required permissions, side effects, or return behavior. This is insufficient 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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from a more structured listing of updatable fields for clarity.

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 complexity (22 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It omits crucial context such as partial update behavior, return value, error conditions, and required permissions, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The schema has low description coverage (9%) and the description only groups parameters into broad categories ('name, description, sender settings, and display options'). It adds no specific meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides, leaving the agent to infer mappings.

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 newsletter in Ghost CMS, and lists categories of updatable fields. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghost_create_newsletter and ghost_get_newsletter.

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 use when updating an existing newsletter, but does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or get). No prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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