update_blog_post_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical safety behavior (published version untouched) and the refusal mechanism for publish/schedule fields, including the `rejected_fields` output. This goes beyond basic mutation; it sets expectations for side effects and restrictions.

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 tight and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, an Args list, and a note on rejected fields. No filler. The safety guarantee is front-loaded, and the parameter list is necessary because the schema lacks descriptions. Every sentence adds value.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what parameters are allowed, and what constitutes invalid input. It does not cover error handling or prerequisite conditions (e.g., draft existence), but those are less critical given the output schema and the tool's simple contract.

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 provides zero description coverage for parameters. The description compensates by enumerating valid `fields` keys (name, htmlTitle, slug, postBody, etc.) and explaining `post_id` as a HubSpot blog post ID. This gives agents concrete guidance on allowed field names, which the schema alone does not provide.

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 'Patch a blog post's DRAFT' – a specific verb, resource, and state – and immediately differentiates it from publishing/scheduling tools by stating 'The published version is never touched.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like publish_blog_post and schedule_blog_post_publish.

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 clearly implies the tool is for draft updates only and reinforces this with 'Fields that could publish or schedule the post are refused.' While it does not name alternative tools explicitly, the behavioral restriction effectively routes agents away from publish/schedule operations and toward the appropriate sibling.

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