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

The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: the result is only a draft, nothing reaches the site until published, it runs immediately as the person, and it consumes one article from the workspace's plan. These details are meaningful for a mutation tool, though the wording about running 'as the person' is somewhat vague.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, and the description is short. However, the second paragraph is phrased in awkward fragments ('A change inside Kooga: it runs at once, as the person') that reduce clarity rather than adding crisp detail.

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 full schema coverage and existing output schema, the description provides enough context about the tool's draft-only behavior, immediate execution, and plan usage. It is mostly complete for an agent to invoke it correctly, with only minor ambiguity around execution semantics.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the meaning of topic and evidence but does not add syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: writing a draft article on a buyer topic where the brand is invisible. It distinguishes the output as a draft in Kooga rather than a published article, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like generateArticle or publishArticle.

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 gives a clear condition for use: a topic the brand is absent from, supported by evidence. However, it does not name when not to use it or explicitly point to alternatives such as generateArticle or publishArticle.

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