Update a content item's title or target date. Fields that are omitted keep their current value. This API is an early preview and can change without a deprecation period.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context about preview instability, explicit confirmation requirements, and that provider errors can occur even with HTTP 200—details not in the annotations. The mention of 'upstream fields to bound data' also adds operational insight. However, it doesn't elaborate on what exactly gets destroyed or how confirmation works.

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 repeats the title verbatim (including the preview notice) before adding extra sentences. This duplication wastes space and buries the additional behavioral notes. The extra sentences are useful but could be more front-loaded.

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 a mutation tool with destructiveHint=true, no output schema, and 8 parameters, the description covers key behavioral aspects: preview instability, confirmation requirement, and provider-error nuance. It misses explaining the title/targetDate update semantics beyond what's in the schema, but the additional context is substantial enough for a 4.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description adds only minor guidance about upstream fields and confirmation, which is largely redundant with schema descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Update a content item's title or target date'), and notes omitted fields are preserved. It distinguishes from siblings like update_content_item_draft and edit_post by naming the specific fields and scope, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 mentions 'Requires explicit confirmation' and references bounding data with 'upstream fields,' but does not state when to use this tool versus update_content_item_draft, edit_post, or promote_content_item_draft. Usage context 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.