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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description goes well beyond that: placement on the next open cadence slot, the exact `blocked: "intent-owned"` / `blocked: "excluded"` response semantics, `coveredBy` reporting, queued status with kind `plan_topic_add`, and the side effect that entries count against the site's posts-per-week quota.

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?

Front-loaded with the core keyword/cluster decision, then the blocking and async behaviors. Dense and largely waste-free, though the later sentences are long and pack several distinct behaviors (blocked codes, queued polling, quota effect) into single run-on statements.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by documenting the relevant response shapes: blocked outcomes with owning page/coveredBy, and the queued/plan_topic_add status with the recommended poll. For a 9-parameter mutation tool, this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 67%; the description adds real meaning for `keyword` vs `cluster` (mutually exclusive, one-article vs multi-article), `scheduledDate` (default is next open slot), `force` (override intent ownership) and `title` (keyword adds only). It does not address `intent`, `difficulty` or `searchVolume`, which have no schema descriptions either, so it does not fully close the 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add an article to the plan') and immediately distinguishes the two add paths (one article by `keyword`, several by `cluster`), which separates it from siblings such as add_my_keywords, update_plan_entry or generate_plan. An agent can identify what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use EITHER `keyword` OR `cluster`, with a note that cluster labels come from get_keywords, and names get_job as the polling tool for queued adds. It also states the when-blocked conditions and the `force: true` escape hatch, so the agent knows both when to call it and what to do on failure.

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