ghost_update_post

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 discloses partial update behavior and replacement semantics for tags and authors. Missing details on authorization, rate limits, or side effects, but adequate for a straightforward update.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 28 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It covers the update behavior and replacement caveat but omits details on required id, return value, and error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only 21%, so many parameters lack descriptions. The description adds value by mentioning updateable categories but does not detail individual parameters beyond tags/authors. It does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 it updates an existing post in Ghost CMS and lists the types of fields (title, content, status, tags, images, SEO). This distinguishes it from create, delete, and page 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?

The description explicitly notes that omitted fields remain unchanged and tags/authors are fully replaced, which guides usage. It does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like ghost_update_page, but the name and context make it clear.

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