Update Blogpost

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-readOnly, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds key behavioral context by specifying that version_number must be 'current version + 1' and enumerating allowed values for body_representation and status. This goes beyond the schema's plain types and defaults.

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 short purpose sentence followed by a concise Args list. Every element is necessary and informative, with no fluff or repetition. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simplicity and the available annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description covers key usage aspects like required parameters and versioning. However, it omits what the tool returns or any potential error conditions, which the absence of an output schema might otherwise require.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It does so for all six parameters, clarifying version_number semantics (must be current+1) and providing value options for body_representation and status. This compensates completely for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing blog post' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_blogpost and delete_blogpost. The resource is unambiguous and aligned with the tool name.

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 usage for existing posts via 'Update an existing blog post', but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as create_blogpost or update_page. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios described, leaving guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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