Update content

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses partial-update semantics and row addressing via slug or id, but omits what happens when no row matches, whether both id and slug are accepted/rejected, and no response shape info.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and resource types; the second adds operational instructions 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 a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description handles the basics but leaves the id/slug requirement unenforced and unclear, and gives no expectation of return value. The fields object is intentionally open-ended, which is acceptable, but the identifier ambiguity is a real 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?

With only 25% schema coverage, the description compensates meaningfully: table maps to the three content types, slug/id are identified as alternative row keys, and fields is explained as a partial-change object. It doesn't state whether id/slug is required (schema marks neither), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb ('update') and resource scope ('blog post, case study, or resource'), and clarifies it targets existing rows, distinguishing it from create_content and delete_content. The identifier options (slug/id) add operational precision.

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?

Clear context: use when modifying fields on existing content rows. The 'existing' wording and 'pass only the fields you want to change' imply not for creation or full replacement, but it never names alternative tools or exclusions (e.g., set_content_published for publishing-only changes).

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