Update a blog post

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It adds useful behavior context by stating the tool is free and explains how language_code affects text fields. However, it omits other important behaviors such as how omitted fields are handled, permissions, or whether it's a partial update (though 'Patch' implies this).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundancy, every word contributes 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?

The tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only summarizes a subset of fields and cost. It doesn't explain the response format, error conditions, or how to handle parameters not mentioned, making it incomplete for reliable use.

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 42%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds meaning by grouping fields (title/body/SEO meta/status) and explaining language_code's role. But several parameters (slug, excerpt, category_id, featured_image) are not mentioned, and their schema descriptions are missing, leaving gaps.

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 uses a specific verb 'Patch' plus a clear resource ('blog post') and lists the key fields (title, body, SEO meta, status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_blog_post, list_blog_posts, and generate_blog_post.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: updating an existing blog post's fields. It also adds practical guidance on using language_code for translations and notes the tool is free, but it doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternatives or exclusions.

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