Return our default article-generation prompt so you can see exactly how the article is written and, optionally, edit it. Pass the edited guidance back as "recommendations" in order_backlink. The output contract (JSON title/html/url, one dofollow link, no images) is fixed so the article can be published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | No | ||
| language | No | ||
| target_url | No | ||
| recommendations | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns the prompt, that editing is optional, and that the output contract is fixed. It also clarifies that the edited guidance is passed via order_backlink, not directly saved here, implying a read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state safety or side effects, which would be ideal.
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-loaded with the primary action, and provides essential context about editing and output constraints. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary 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?
The description covers the main purpose and workflow, and mentions the fixed output contract, which is important. However, it omits any explanation of how parameters like keyword, language, and target_url affect the prompt, and the role of the recommendations parameter for this tool is ambiguous. Given 4 optional params and no output schema, more detail is needed for full completeness.
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 has 4 parameters (keyword, language, target_url, recommendations) with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'recommendations' but in the context of order_backlink, not this tool's own parameter. It fails to explain keyword, language, or target_url, leaving their meaning and usage unclear. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'Return our default article-generation prompt', which is a specific verb ('return') and resource ('default article-generation prompt'). It also explains the purpose (see how the article is written) and distinguishes from sibling tools like order_backlink by showing the workflow of editing and passing recommendations.
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 explicitly says to 'Pass the edited guidance back as "recommendations" in order_backlink', which guides when and how to use this tool in conjunction with another. It implies using this tool before ordering to review/customize the prompt. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools beyond the contextual flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: balance, article prompt, basket contents, donor search, link status, order creation, and publishing. No two tools share the same purpose, making selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_balance, get_article_prompt, list_donors, order_backlink). Verbs are appropriate to the action, and nouns clearly identify the target resource.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a backlink ordering service. Each tool addresses a distinct step in the workflow—search, order, review, publish, monitor—without redundancy or bloat.
The core lifecycle is covered: find donors, draft order, inspect basket, publish, and track links. The only notable gap is that basket items cannot be removed or edited before publishing, which can trap an agent that mis-orders.