ghl_social_edit_post

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (modifies data) and idempotentHint=true (potentially idempotent). The description does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It mentions a PUT endpoint but does not clarify idempotency or consequences of editing.

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 short but contains contradictory information (edit vs create). It front-loads the title but disrupts clarity with irrelevant create instructions. The link and endpoint info are useful but could be more concise.

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 (nested objects, many parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to state the core editing functionality and leaves confusion with creation details. The schema is thorough, but the description does not provide adequate higher-level context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., a link to platform limitations). No parameter semantics are enhanced, but no contradiction either.

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 starts with 'Edit post' but immediately describes creating posts ('Create posts for all supported platforms...'). This is contradictory and confuses the tool's purpose. The endpoint (PUT) confirms an edit operation, but the description does not consistently state that it modifies an existing 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ghl_social_post_create' (a sibling tool for creating posts). The description does not specify that this tool is for editing existing posts, nor does it exclude its use for creation (which is incorrect).

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