edit_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Only provided fields are changed,' which reveals partial-update semantics, a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., rescheduling behavior when schedule_at is updated, impact on existing deliveries) or error conditions, so transparency is incomplete.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds a key behavioral detail without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should provide more context. It only covers purpose and partial-update behavior, but omits return values, error handling, side effects, and any guidance on how the parameters interact. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with this complexity.

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 coverage is low at 25%—only the 'id' parameter has a description. The description adds no information about the meanings or usage of 'labels', 'content', or 'schedule_at'. It only mentions the patch behavior, which does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'post', and clarifies it applies to an existing post, distinguishing it from creation or deletion. This is clear and specific, and the sibling tools like get_post, delete_post, and schedule_post are clearly differentiated by the intent to modify an existing post.

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 updating existing posts, which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like schedule_post, which could also modify schedule_at, or mention any exclusions. The guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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