ghost_update_newsletter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral nuances. It only states that it updates configuration, with no mention of side effects (e.g., effect on subscribers, validation of sender_email, or whether updates are partial or full replacement). This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutating tool.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is zero redundancy or filler; every word contributes to the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward update tool.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or any behavioral constraints (e.g., whether partial updates are allowed, though the schema suggests this). An agent calling this tool would lack context on consequences and expected results.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for every parameter, so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description's phrase 'configuration' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify ID format or any parameter-specific behavior, thus meeting the baseline without contributing extra 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'), the resource ('newsletter'), and the scope ('configuration'), with identification by ID. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like ghost_create_newsletter (creation) and ghost_get_newsletter (retrieval).

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'existing' implicitly suggests it is not for creation, but there is no reference to ghost_create_newsletter or any condition for selection. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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