Update a post

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the required safety flag and confirmation guard, though it does not explain side effects such as what happens to published posts or mode transitions.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then states the safety requirements without redundant filler. Every sentence adds relevant information.

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?

It covers the tool’s purpose and destructive-operation prerequisites, which is important for a mutation tool. However, for a 6-parameter update with nested metadata and no output schema, it omits enough parameter semantics that an agent would need to infer formats and field behavior.

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 description names the main editable fields (text, due date, mode, metadata) and explains the confirm constraint, but schema coverage is only 17% and it does not clarify dueAt format, mode enum meaning, or metadata structure. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage but leaves clear 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 (“Edit”) and resource (“an existing draft/scheduled post”) and lists the editable fields. It clearly distinguishes this from create/delete siblings by limiting scope to existing draft or scheduled posts.

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?

It states the key precondition for use: safety.allowDestructive=true and a confirm value equal to the post id. It also scopes usage to existing draft/scheduled posts, though it does not explicitly name create_post or delete_post as alternatives.

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