Update post

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that—particularly that setting scheduledAt to null clears the schedule and returns the post to draft—but it does not cover permission requirements, media replacement semantics, status-transition rules, or how accountOverrides behave.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and each listed field corresponds to an editable aspect of the post. It is compact and scannable, though the parenthetical scheduling note and bare field list are somewhat terse.

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 12-parameter mutation with minimal schema documentation and no output schema, the description is too thin. It names several editable fields but leaves key parameters and behavioral details undocumented, so an agent would still need to infer a lot before invoking it safely.

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 8%, so the description must carry most of the parameter meaning. It maps a few fields (caption, media to mediaIds, schedule to scheduledAt, status, poll, thread to threadParts), but omits important parameters including the required postId, accountIds, accountOverrides, delayMinutes, firstComment, and postType.

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 gives a clear verb and resource ('Partially update a post') and enumerates the fields that can be changed. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as reschedule_post or schedule_post, which also deal with scheduling, but the partial-update framing is specific enough to identify the operation.

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?

Usage is implied by the list of editable fields, so an agent can infer this is for partial edits rather than creation, listing, or deletion. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus reschedule_post, schedule_post, or update_comment, and no when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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