Generate one AutoSEO blog post

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses key behaviors: it never auto-publishes, runs dedup/uniqueness/quality gates, includes jsonldValid in the response, and is 'Safe for a draft-only agent token.' This adds substantial context about side effects and safety that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Though longer than average, every sentence earns its place: core purpose, scheduling behavior, quality gates, response signal, style rules, and safety. The description is front-loaded with the primary function and then logically expands into operational constraints, so it is structured and efficient for its complexity.

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?

The description covers generation behavior, safety (never auto-publishes), quality gates, a return-value signal (jsonldValid), and detailed writing style policies. Even without an output schema, an agent has enough contextual information to invoke the tool correctly and avoid common pitfalls (em-dashes, hashtag spam, AI-sounding tone).

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic detail: 'schedule is an optional future ISO datetime; omit it to leave the post as an unscheduled draft' and reinforces topic sourcing from autoseo_propose_topics. This goes beyond raw schema definitions without fully needing to, hence a 4.

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 'Generate one AI-drafted, answer-shaped blog post... land it as a draft awaiting approval (or a future schedule)' and explicitly says 'this never auto-publishes on its own,' distinguishing it from publish_post or schedule_post siblings. The verb+resource+outcome is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Source topic from autoseo_propose_topics rather than guessing one' and 'Before drafting, read the account's recent posts with list_posts and match their voice.' It also clarifies the schedule optionality and the draft-only safety, giving clear context versus alternatives.

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