Propose topics for a site

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it does NOT crawl or inspect existing pages, uses AI-estimated rather than measured data, and creates content that cannot reach an audience on its own. This adds important context about side effects and data reliability that annotations do not provide.

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 compact and every sentence adds value: purpose, exclusions, sequencing, workflow, and capability note. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and uses clear structure without redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, expected behavior, non-behaviors, workflow integration, and return handling ('Relay the returned proposals'). It fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 a clear description for siteId. The tool description enriches parameter meaning by explaining that siteId refers to a connected site with configured pillars, which is not explicit in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline 3 for high 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 ('brainstorm') and resource ('question-shaped topics with rationale') and clarifies what the tool does not do (crawl site, inspect pages, use measured search data). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like autoseo_configure or autoseo_generate_post by framing it as an early-stage ideation step.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance is provided: call after autoseo_connect_site and autoseo_verify_site, before autoseo_configure. It also explains why (user approves a concrete topic list) and how to relay results, and notes the capability constraint ('Safe for a draft-only agent token') for appropriate invocation context.

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