Update an existing social media post. Change content, labels, or schedule time while leaving other fields unchanged.
Update an existing post. Only provided fields are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Post id (uuid) | |
| labels | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| schedule_at | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one meaningful trait: 'Only provided fields are changed' establishes partial-update (PATCH-like) semantics rather than full replacement. However, it omits required permissions, error behavior for a nonexistent id, and any indication of what a successful update returns.
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?
Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the operation, the second scopes it. The verb is front-loaded with zero filler.
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 is flat with only four scalar parameters, and the description states the two critical invariants: it targets an existing post and only provided fields change. But with no output schema, no annotations, and no guidance on schedule_at format or labels behavior, an agent still has meaningful gaps to resolve before invoking correctly.
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 only 25% (only the id property is described), so the description must compensate but barely does. 'Only provided fields are changed' adds partial-update meaning to the optional parameters, yet it does not explain labels semantics (replace vs. append), any format constraints for schedule_at, or constraints on content.
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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing post'), and the second sentence scopes the operation to partial updates. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools (delete_post, get_post, schedule_post, cancel_post), whose verbs describe distinct operations.
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 — the agent can infer that edit_post is the right tool when altering an existing post's fields — but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The description does not address the overlap with schedule_post and cancel_post when the intended change concerns timing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.