Update an existing Hashnode draft

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation behavior is known. The description adds the key behavioral nuance that only provided fields are changed, which is important for partial updates. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but with annotations present, this is acceptable.

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 front-loaded with a meaningful sentence, but the subsequent 'Args:' list redundantly repeats parameter information already present in the input schema. This adds bloat without new information. It is readable, but not every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential partial-update behavior and output format options. It does not describe the return value or potential errors, but no output schema exists and the tool's purpose is straightforward. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema fully documents each parameter. The description duplicates the parameter list without adding new per-parameter semantic detail. However, the introductory sentence clarifies the partial-update semantics of optional parameters, which adds value beyond the schema.

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 'Update fields of an existing draft' with a specific verb and resource, and the title reinforces this. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_draft and publish_draft by focusing on modifying an existing draft. The phrase 'Only provided fields are changed' adds valuable scope clarification.

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 usage for modifying an existing draft versus creating or publishing one. It does not explicitly name alternatives like hashnode_create_draft or hashnode_update_post, but the 'existing draft' context is unambiguous. It lacks explicit exclusions or fallback guidance, but the intended use case is clear.

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