fc update feed

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: annotations only declare destructive/openWorld/not-idempotent, while the description adds that confirmation is mandatory, that no retries are possible, that other people may be affected via hooks/announcements, and that media/topics get reconciled and an edit-history entry is written. It still doesn't say what happens to fields omitted from the replacement, which is the main residual gap.

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 opening sentence is dense and front-loaded, and the confirmation/no-retries warning is well placed. The 'Controller: ... Route source: ...' line is developer-facing metadata that adds little for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool, so not every sentence 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?

For a destructive, open-world, 15-parameter mutation with no output schema, the behavioral side is adequately covered but the parameter side is not: nothing explains replacement vs. partial semantics, field omission behavior, or the payload/payload_file exclusivity that a caller must get right.

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 only 33% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it doesn't. The critical payload vs. payload_file vs. body-flag mutual exclusion, and the mapping of top-level fields to the nested payload, are documented only in the schema fragments, not in the description.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Replaces the body and metadata of an existing post') plus the consequential side effects (re-render, media/topic reconciliation, edit-history entry). The word 'existing' cleanly separates it from fc_create_feed and fc_delete_feed.

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?

States a precondition ('Explicit local confirmation is required') and a hazard ('hooks, announcements and automations may affect other people'), which implies when to proceed carefully. However, it never says when to choose this over siblings such as fc_update_comment or fc_delete_feed, and the 'confirm' parameter's semantics are left to the schema.

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