Suggest titles from draft text

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false), the description explicitly states that nothing is saved, the article is not retitled, and requires an API key with credit consumption. It also discloses the generative (non-deterministic) nature of the tool and the 20-character minimum, providing critical behavioral context 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then explains usage differentiation, followed by side effects and constraints. Each sentence adds unique value, and no redundant or filler content exists.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: when to use it, what it returns (5 titles), that it is read-only and doesn't persist changes, cost implications, and the non-deterministic output. It also mentions the specific update_article tool to apply a title, covering the follow-up action.

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%, and the schema description already fully explains the 'context' parameter (plain/Markdown, 20-8000 chars, and advice to use the full draft for better titles). The tool description repeats these points but adds no new parameter-level information that isn't already in the schema, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 'Generate 5 title options FROM AN EXISTING DRAFT, derived from what the article actually says.' It specifies the exact deliverable (5 titles) and the input (existing draft). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool generate_title_seo by explaining when each should be used, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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: 'use this one when the text exists and should drive the headline' and contrasts with generate_title_seo for keyword-driven scenarios. It also notes the tool 'takes no keyword input at all,' reinforcing the selection criteria.

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