Edit a published status

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: Mastodon keeps a public revision history, the post retains boosts/replies/favourites, and the edit is public the moment it runs so confirm is required. This complements the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradicting 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?

Four concise, front-loaded sentences deliver the action, rationale, prerequisite, and safety requirement with no filler. Every sentence earns its place in the description.

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 destructive mutation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, prerequisite, and public-feedback consequence. It does not describe return values or rate limits, but those are not essential for this tool given the schema's parameter coverage.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning the editable fields and the confirm requirement; it does not compensate for the undocumented language and sensitive 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Change the text, content warning, media alt text or poll of a status that is already published'), which unambiguously identifies the operation. It also distinguishes editing from delete-and-repost, making the tool's purpose clear even among many sibling tools.

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 explicitly frames when this tool is appropriate ('editing beats delete-and-repost') and gives a concrete prerequisite ('Call get_status_source first to get the exact text you are editing'). It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, so it stops short of fully explicit exclusion guidance.

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