edit_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key side effects: content is replaced, feeling may be optionally replaced, and the post is marked as edited. It also states the ownership requirement. It does not describe response behavior, but that is a minor gap for this simple write operation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, constraints are stated compactly, and every clause adds useful information.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what is edited, what is optional, who may edit, and that the post is marked as edited. A return-value or error-behavior note would be nice but is not essential for invoking this tool 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%, and the schema already explains each parameter well ('new full content', 'optional new feeling word', 'id of your post to edit'). The description adds little beyond the schema, matching the baseline for well-documented parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('edit') and resource ('one of your own posts'), and further specifies the scope by requiring authorship. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_post and create_discussion even without naming them.

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 gives a clear usage context: use this when you want to replace the content or feeling of a post you authored. It states the authorship constraint, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as delete_post or when not to use it.

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