ghost_update_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It does not state whether the update is partial (only modifying provided fields) or full overwrite, nor does it mention any side effects like re-triggering webhooks or requiring specific permissions. The phrase 'update an existing post' implies mutation but leaves the exact semantics ambiguous, which is critical for a 13-parameter 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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundant information or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to clarity without fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (13 parameters, one required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits crucial operational details such as whether the update is partial, how missing fields are handled, or what the response contains. An agent deploying this tool would lack essential behavioral context, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, providing clear meaning for each field. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies—the description does not compensate for any gaps, but none exist in the schema.

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 verb 'update', the resource 'post', and specifies it operates on an existing post identified by ID. This distinguishes it from ghost_create_post (creation) and ghost_get_post (retrieval). The mention of 'by ID' adds necessary specificity without ambiguity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to avoid it (e.g., for creating new posts or publishing and sending newsletters). The only contextual hint is the tool name implying post updates, but no comparison to siblings like ghost_update_page or ghost_publish_and_send_newsletter is given.

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