schema_generate

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 add useful facts: no authentication required, no Google API calls made, and the two verdict outcomes (generated | error). However, it never explains which of the 29 parameters matter for which of the four schema types, which is the key behavioral detail for a tool with this fan-out.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the whole thing is short. The provenance line ('Adapted from scripts/schema_generate.py in claude-seo...') is agent-irrelevant overhead but minor.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a tool exposing 29 parameters that map to four different schema types, the description omits the one thing an agent most needs: which parameters apply to which type. The parameter-to-type mapping gap makes it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0% across 29 parameters, so the schema documents nothing. The description compensates only for schema_type by listing its four allowed values, leaving the remaining 28 optional parameters completely undocumented in both places. This is far below the compensation required at 0% coverage.

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 ('Generate a Schema.org JSON-LD block') and enumerates the four supported types, so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling schema_validate, leaving the generate-vs-validate distinction to inference.

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 lists the supported schema types but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to the obvious alternative (schema_validate). The agent must guess the context in which generation is appropriate.

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