write_blog_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, and it does so clearly: 'It does not write the article on its own - it checks the input, confirms setup, and returns the ordered plan.' It also tells the agent what happens next: the article is written at draft_brief. This prevents a major false expectation from the tool's name.

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 longer than strictly necessary but well structured: purpose first, then use conditions, then behavioral clarification. The repeated emphasis on using it even when the server is not named is slightly redundant but forgivable because it reinforces a key trigger condition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the main return value: an ordered plan with the next call to make. It does not describe the plan's structure or setup requirements, but an agent can correctly invoke the tool and know what to expect next. The key behavioral surprise is fully disclosed.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needs to compensate. It adds meaning by explaining the parameter is the topic or headline the user asks about, including plain requests like 'write me a blog post about X.' However, it does not describe expected format, length, or how to handle ambiguous topics, so it only partially compensates.

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 opening line states a clear action and resource: 'Write a complete, publication-ready blog post about a news story.' The description then corrects a potential misunderstanding by explaining it does not write the article itself but returns an ordered plan. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from every sibling, but it does point to draft_brief as the step where the actual writing happens.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS TOOL whenever the user asks for a blog post, an article, a news write-up, or content about a headline or a current topic.' It also tells the agent what not to do: 'Do not search the web and draft the article yourself.' This is strong, actionable routing guidance.

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