seo_open_graph_generator

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'generates' a meta block and mentions a live preview, but it does not clarify whether the output is returned or saved, what permissions are needed, or any side effects (e.g., destructive actions). This is insufficient for a tool with 6 required parameters.

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 single sentence covering key elements: purpose, properties, preview feature, and verticals. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it could benefit from clearer structure (e.g., bullet points).

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 tool's complexity (6 required parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the return value, behavior for different verticals, or provide examples. The reliance on describe_tool indicates missing context that could be included directly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the core OG properties (title, description, image, url, type) and mentions verticals like article, book, etc. However, it does not explain the nested article object's fields (author, publishedTime) or provide details for other verticals. The reference to describe_tool partially mitigates this, but the description alone adds limited meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool generates Open Graph protocol meta blocks (og:title, og:description, etc.) per ogp.me, and mentions a live Facebook preview and vertical sub-properties. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling SEO tools like seo_meta_tag_generator.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It references 'use describe_tool for full page guidance,' which implies more details are available elsewhere, but the description itself lacks direct usage guidance or exclusions.

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