Update a pending post

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: only draft/ready posts can be modified, published posts are rejected, and the API surfaces a descriptive error rather than silently doing nothing. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences earn their place; the main behavior is front-loaded and the limiting condition follows immediately. The 'NOT' emphasis and the error note are concise and useful, with no filler.

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?

For the common update path the description is complete: it names the editable payload areas, state restriction, and error outcome, and an output schema is present. It is slightly incomplete because it omits title and state as editable fields and never mentions the required id_publication, but these are recoverable from the schema and the operation's intent.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 29%, the description needed to compensate. It clarifies that text, media (files), and publish_date are editable, and relates 'draft'/'ready' to not-yet-published. However, it does not explain the semantics of 'title', 'state' as an updatable field, 'id_publication', or 'id_organization', leaving gaps that the schema also leaves open.

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 opens with a precise action and resource: 'Change the text, media or scheduled date of a post', and immediately narrows scope to posts in 'draft' or 'ready' state. This clearly separates update_publication from sibling tools like create_publication, retry_publication, and list_publications, and from get_publication.

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?

It explicitly states when the tool is applicable (posts that have not gone out, state draft or ready) and gives the when-not case (published posts cannot be edited, with an error). It does not name alternative tools for published posts, but no sibling appears to offer that capability, so the exclusion is sufficient.

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