posts_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses patch semantics ('only the provided fields change'), the html-replaces-body nuance, and automatic handling of Ghost's updated_at collision check – genuine behavioral context. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, failure modes, or what happens to unlisted fields on conflict, so it is not complete for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The most decision-relevant fact (partial update) immediately follows the purpose statement, and the collision-check note is a single compact clause.

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 a 19-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the update model but omits auth/permission context, side effects like tag auto-creation, and any error behavior beyond the collision check. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 32% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It adds real meaning only for html (body replaced only when given); the other ~18 fields, including status enum values and tag-creation side effects, get no clarification.

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+resource ('Update a post') and adds scope detail about partial updates. It implicitly distinguishes from pages_update by naming 'post', but never explicitly names an alternative sibling, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus pages_update, posts_create, or posts_read. There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated; the agent must infer that this is the mutation path because the name says 'update'.

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