update_announcement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only confirms the mutation ('update') without detailing side effects, permission requirements, partial-update semantics, or consequences of null fields. It does not mention that unspecified fields remain unchanged or that the scheduled post date is optional. This is a significant gap 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and lists the key fields, with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for the scope.

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?

With 5 parameters, 2 required, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain the required identifiers, the meaning of null values, partial update behavior, or possible side effects. Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks essential usage context for an agent to call the tool correctly. The description fails to provide necessary guidance on how to construct a valid request.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It directly mentions title, message, and scheduled post date (delayed_post_at), but provides no explanation for course_identifier or announcement_id, which are both required to identify the target announcement. It does not clarify that these are identifiers or that only the listed fields are updated. The description only partially compensates for the schema coverage gap.

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 a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('existing announcement'), and lists the modifiable fields ('title, message, and/or scheduled post date'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_announcement or delete_announcement 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 implies the tool is for modifying an existing announcement (via 'existing'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create_announcement, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. Lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references.

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