mark_article_published

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses this is a WRITE ACTION, requires a Pro plan or higher, and describes the side effects (stops suggestions, marks published, prevents competing pages). This gives strong behavioral context beyond mere 'marks published', including persistence of state changes and side effects on content generation.

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 a compact, front-loaded block that begins with the core purpose. It's fairly dense and information-packed; could arguably be tightened, but each sentence contributes meaning (purpose, side effects, timing, action-type flag, plan requirement). Reasonably sized for a mutating tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational details: when to call, what values to pass, exactness requirement, side effects, and access-level requirement. Slightly under-specified on what the tool returns or how to confirm success, but complete enough for reliable invocation in most cases.

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% with 4 params, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by emphasizing keyword must match exactly what list_keywords shows, and URL must be full https. It also clarifies the 'title' default behavior implicitly through the schema description. The key constraint about keyword-exactness is added in prose, elevating it above baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the verb+resource: telling Cituna a page for a keyword is LIVE. It thoroughly explains the specific functional purpose (stop suggesting the topic, show as published on Keywords board, stop offering competing pages). Distinguishes well from siblings, which are read/query tools like list_keywords and gsc_overview.

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?

States when to use ('right after you publish') and provides concrete invocation guidance (pass keyword exactly as list_keywords shows it, full https URL). Explicitly names list_keywords as source for the keyword value. Lacks an explicit when-NOT-to-use statement, but the clear trigger context is sufficient.

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