update_post

Does 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 simply says 'update' without explaining partial vs. full field replacement, what happens to unspecified fields, whether the status can be reset, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this lack of nuance is a significant gap.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one short sentence. It never mentions what happens on success or failure, whether updates are partial or full, or how the status field fits into the workflow. This is insufficient for such a complex mutation tool, especially without structured metadata to fill the gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level grouping ('schedule date/time' for scheduleDate and scheduleTime) but does not provide additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present. It doesn't compensate for or extend the schema, so a 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 clearly states the action: 'Update the fields (content, platforms, schedule date/time) of an existing post.' The verb 'update' and resource 'post' are specific, and listing the fields distinguishes it from siblings like create_post and delete_post. It omits the status field, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention create_post for new posts, publish_post_now for immediate publishing, or any prerequisites. The intended context is implied by the name but not explicitly stated, and no exclusions or alternative references are given.

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