update_post

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

The description matches the annotations (idempotentHint and destructiveHint) but adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., whether partial updates are allowed, error handling, or side effects). With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description is adequate but not enriched.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the affected fields. No redundant information, and every word is functional.

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?

The description covers the core purpose but omits return value details (since no output schema), error conditions, or permissions. For a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, additional context (e.g., what the response looks like) would improve completeness.

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 each parameter. The description merely lists the fields ('title, markdown content, or publication status') without adding details like examples, dependencies, or formatting rules. This is baseline value.

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 action ('Update a post') and specifies the editable fields ('title, markdown content, or publication status'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings like delete_post (delete) and generate_post (create).

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?

The description implies the tool is for updating post attributes but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like bulk updates. No exclusions or alternatives are named, but the context is clear.

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