Update a changelog entry

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

Annotations already carry readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, and the description adds value by revealing PATCH-like behavior and the side effect that setting status to draft unpublishes the entry. No contradiction with the annotations; the description complements them.

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 sentences, each with a distinct job: identify the scope, state the update semantics, and flag the notable side effect. No filler or repetition of schema contents.

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 the essential partial-update behavior and the unpublish nuance, but for a seven-parameter mutation with no output schema and a sibling publish_entry, it leaves invocation guidance somewhat thin. An agent would still need to inspect enum values and infer semantics for several parameters.

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 29%, yet the description provides almost no parameter-level detail except the semantic effect of the status field. Fields like type, title, content, and published_at are left to names/enums, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's sparse documentation.

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?

Description uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Update fields of an existing entry') and distinguishes the operation from creation via 'existing'. It does not explicitly differentiate from publish_entry, which could be used for status changes, but the broad update framing is still 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?

States partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and calls out a key behavior for status changes. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer publish_entry for publishing or when create_entry is the right alternative, leaving the overlap with siblings unresolved.

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