update_post

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 states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It wastes no words but could benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions. Overall, it's appropriately sized for its content.

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 (mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or provide enough context for safe and effective use. It should do more to compensate for the missing structured data.

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 compensate. It mentions parameters ('title/content/labels') but doesn't explain their semantics, formats, or constraints. It omits blogId and postId entirely, which are required parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing post'), and specifies what can be updated ('title/content/labels'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_post, delete_post, and get_post by focusing on modification rather than creation, deletion, or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from revert_post (which might also modify a post).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing blogId and postId), when not to use it (e.g., for new posts vs. existing ones), or direct alternatives like revert_post for undoing changes. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly contextualized.

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