edit_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses token sourcing and Markdown support but lacks details on mutability (e.g., whether title is truly optional, overwriting behavior, or response format). Additional behavioral context would improve safety.

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 structured as a clear docstring with Args and Returns sections. It is reasonably concise, though the Args block could be slightly more compact. Sentences are functional and 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?

The description covers main execution steps but lacks detail on edge cases (e.g., error handling, rate limits, auth failure). With an output schema mentioned but not shown, the agent may need more guidance on expected return values. Adequate for simple updates 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It does so effectively: explains title's optionality, access_token's dual source, and edit_token's purpose for anonymous posts. This adds significant meaning beyond raw 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 an existing post's content and/or title,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinctively indicates modification rather than creation (publish_post) or deletion (delete_post), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 editing existing posts but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., when to create a new post vs. update). No exclusions or when-not scenarios are provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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