Create a Dev.to article

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the public/draft dichotomy, which largely mirrors the `published` schema field. It fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, return values, or side effects like persisting the article. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 one concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose. It has no wasted words, but it is so short that it sacrifices informative content. Still, conciseness is appropriate for the minimal information provided.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling actions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success (e.g., returns an article object), how it handles validation, or when publishing is immediate. The tool is a complex create operation yet the description oversimplifies it.

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 50%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented params (tags, title, description, canonicalUrl). It does not. It only hints at the published param by saying 'public post or private draft.' Other parameters receive no elucidation, leaving a clear 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new article'), and distinguishes between public and private drafts. This uniquely identifies the tool's function among siblings like update_article, which modifies existing articles.

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 implies usage for creating new articles and mentions the two publishing states, but it does not explicitly contrast with update_article or outline when to use which tool. There are no direct alternatives or exclusions mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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