Edit a feed post

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important traits: editing someone else's post requires admin/owner rights, attachments are preserved, and the post must be in the recent feed. It also explains that omitting title retains the current title. However, it does not explicitly mention whether the operation is irreversible or if it triggers notifications, but these are not critical for a typical edit operation. The description sufficiently discloses behavior beyond a simple 'edit' statement.

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 concise yet complete, using about 100 words across several sentences. It front-loads the main action ('Edit a post...') then provides necessary details on parameters, permissions, and constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description is fully self-contained. It covers how to obtain inputs, default behaviors, permission nuances, and the constraint on the recent feed. No information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is omitted.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds significant semantic value beyond the schema. It explains that post_id originates from send_post or read_posts, that oase_id defaults to the last joined oase, that title omission keeps the current title while empty string clears it, and that body supports markdown. These usage details are not present in the schema and help an agent construct correct calls.

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 verb and resource: 'Edit a post (opslag) on an oase's feed, replacing its body (and optionally its title) with new markdown.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_post (create), delete_post (delete), and read_posts (read) by focusing on the modification aspect. There is no ambiguity about what action the tool performs.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it explains how to obtain the required post_id from send_post or read_posts output, describes default behavior for oase_id, clarifies title semantics (omit keeps current, empty string clears), and states permission requirements (own post vs admin/owner for others) along with the constraint that the post must be in the recent feed. These conditions and alternatives are clearly articulated, leaving little to inference.

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