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

Beyond the annotations (which only flag it as a mutating, open-world, non-idempotent write), the description discloses concrete side effects: resolving or opening a brief, linking it to the goal, moving the goal to active, and returning the next loop step. It also warns that a derived keyword must be confirmed with the user. It does not describe failure modes or error behavior, holding it below a 5.

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 'START HERE' trigger, which is exactly the right priority. The remaining content is dense but all relevant, though the second sentence runs long with several chained clauses that could be split for readability.

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?

For a multi-step orchestration entry point with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the state mutations, and the shape of the returned next_step (the full interview-to-outcomes loop), and tells the agent to follow it exactly. An agent has everything needed to invoke it and act on the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for target_keyword (it is derived from the goal title unless passed, and a derived keyword should be confirmed), which is semantic value the schema does not provide. It adds nothing for notes, goal_id, or site_id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (resolves/creates a goal's content brief and returns the next loop step) and clearly scopes it to goals rather than pages, which distinguishes it from the sibling content_for_page and create_content_brief. An agent can tell what this does without opening any 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 an explicit trigger phrase ('START HERE when the user says write the blog / page for this goal'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name the page-level alternative (content_for_page) or state when-not to use it, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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