atualizar_post

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: partial update behavior ('Só os campos enviados são alterados'), media exclusion, and a side-effect warning about the approval flow. These are not present in the annotations, making the description highly informative.

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 and front-loaded, beginning with 'ESCRITA' and a clear verb. Each sentence provides essential information: fields, partial update, media exclusion, and a warning.

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 description covers core functionality, edge cases (media untouched), and side effects (approval flow). Combined with schema descriptions and annotations, it provides sufficient context for a tool with no output schema. It could mention prerequisites like post_id existence, but the schema already covers that.

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?

The description complements the schema by explaining partial update semantics, clarifying that only provided fields are changed. The schema already documents formats and replacement behavior for 'roteiro', so the description adds value without redundancy.

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 'Altera campos de texto de um post existente' (changes text fields of an existing post), listing specific fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'criar_post' and 'consultar_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 usage for editing existing posts and explicitly notes 'Não toca em mídia' (doesn't touch media), providing an exclusion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for media or creation, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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