update_post

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'update' implying mutation but omits details like whether the post must exist, if updates are irreversible, permission requirements, or how partial updates work. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain return values or side effects. For a moderately complex update operation, more context (e.g., what happens to unchanged fields) would be beneficial.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the updatable fields (text, scheduled time, status) which summarizes the parameters but adds no new constraints or usage details beyond the schema's 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 the verb (update) and the resource (post) with specific updatable fields (text, scheduled time, status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_post or schedule_post by implying modification of existing posts, but could be more explicit about not creating new posts.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that schedule_post might be used for initial scheduling, or that update_post could revert a scheduled post to draft. The context is implied but not explicit.

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