article_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait: the call returns a set of instructions the agent must execute rather than finished copy. However, it is ambiguous about whether an article is produced at all, and says nothing about permissions, limits, or output format for a text-generating operation.

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?

Two sentences, no padding, and the editorial intent is front-loaded ahead of the operational instruction. The phrasing is deliberately evocative ('the three things only they can add'), which costs a little precision but not length.

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 four-parameter generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the agent needs to know what actually comes back and how it differs from sibling content tools; the description leaves the return payload ambiguous. The one sentence about following instructions partially covers behavior but leaves the core workflow under-specified.

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 topic, voice, length, and tongue are already documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — notably it never mentions the three style/scope controls (voice, length, tongue) that shape the result.

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 name plus 'A first draft' implies the tool drafts an article from the given topic, but the description never states the verb/resource plainly — it describes the draft's editorial ending ('the three things only they can add') instead of what the tool does. It is distinguishable from siblings only by the tool name, not by the prose, which reads more like marketing copy than a capability statement.

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?

There is no indication of when to choose article_draft over content_refresh, keyword_clusters, or the other content siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g. needing a keyword set first). The only directional sentence, 'carry them out rather than summarising them', is a usage instruction for the returned content, not guidance on selecting the tool.

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