edit_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses the authentication requirement, but fails to mention partial update semantics, error handling, idempotency, or return values. 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key requirement. No wasted words, appropriately sized.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description gives only a one-line summary. It does not address the update model (partial vs. full), behavior for non-existent posts, or response details. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a gap.

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?

All 7 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It doesn't clarify whether fields are optional or how partial updates work, but the schema already provides names and descriptions, so a baseline score of 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 ('edit'), the resource ('existing post'), and platform ('Velog'), and distinguishes it from sibling create/delete/write tools. The verb 'edit' unambiguously signals a modification operation.

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 provides the context (editing an existing post) and a prerequisite (authentication) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like write_post or delete_post. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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