Edit company post

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and open-world side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds that it replaces only the body of an existing post, which is useful scoping, but it does not disclose side effects such as irreversibility, permission needs, or what happens to other post attributes. No contradictions with annotations.

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 tightly worded sentence: 'Replace the body of an existing company post.' It front-loads the action and object with no filler, making it immediately scannable and clear.

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 input schema covers all parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations define the safety profile, the description is adequate for a simple field-replacement tool. It could mention that the entire body is overwritten, but 'replace' already conveys that. It lacks constraints like text length limits, but these are not essential for initial invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%; each parameter (company_id, post_urn, new_text) has a description. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and the schema’s reference to company_list_posts for post_urn is more informative. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Replace the body') and a clear resource ('an existing company post'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like company_create_post, company_delete_post, and company_update_details. The focus on 'body' clarifies that it is a targeted edit rather than a general post update.

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 implies the tool is for editing an existing post's body, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The parameter description for post_urn references company_list_posts, providing a workflow hint, but the main description lacks direct comparatives or exclusions.

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