create_article

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

The description notes that the article is immediately reflected on the site, indicating instant publishing. However, it does not discuss destructive actions, idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 dense paragraph. While it includes all necessary information, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points, separations) and could be more readable. It front-loads the purpose but is not optimally concise.

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 input parameters well but omits output/return values. For a creation tool, knowing what is returned (e.g., article ID) is important context missing here. Additional operational details are absent.

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 input schema is minimal ('additionalProperties: true'), so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains each field (e.g., lang en/ko/zh/ja, tag options, sources minimum 1) and constraints, providing essential meaning beyond the generic 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 explicitly states the tool creates a KoreanSkinpedia article via API, listing required and optional fields. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (create_procedure, health, upsert_clinic).

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 specifies medical requirement and lists required fields (reviewer, sources, medicallyReviewedAt). It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the context of publishing articles is clear.

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