ghost_posts_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not state that partial updates are allowed, that tags/authors replace existing arrays, that updates may affect publication state, or what permissions are required. The only hint of behavior ('existing') is a restatement of the mutation semantics.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but for a 15-parameter mutation tool this level of brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 15 parameters, zero annotations, no output schema, and a dense sibling set, the description is far too thin to be complete. It leaves update semantics, permissions, and differentiation from bulk/publish variants entirely unaddressed.

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 100% and each of the 15 parameters is individually documented (including enum values and 'replaces existing' semantics), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 verb+resource ('Update an existing post') is clear, but it does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings like ghost_posts_bulk_update, ghost_posts_publish, or ghost_posts_unpublish, which are all mutations of the same resource. An agent cannot tell from the description which mutation path applies.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the many sibling mutation tools (bulk_update, publish, unpublish). The agent must infer that this is the single-post edit path entirely from the name.

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