create_episode

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'final release is gated', which communicates that the episode will not be immediately released, but does not explain what the tool actually does in terms of side effects (e.g., creates a draft, triggers further steps) or whether it is safe to invoke. There is no mention of permissions, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise, a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and a critical constraint (gated release). It front-loads the primary action and conveys key information with zero fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and its role in a pipeline, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'planning' entails, what the output of the tool is (e.g., a plan object), or how it relates to creating a full episode. The lack of parameter semantics and behavioral detail leaves agents unsure about how to invoke it correctly, especially when other sibling tools like research_episode and write_script exist.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation. The description gives no details about what the parameters (topic, series, quality, duration_sec, research_pack) mean or how they affect the planning process. It only mentions 'cited', which hints that citations are involved, but does not explain how research_pack or other parameters influence the output. This is a significant gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'Plan' with the resource 'cited 60-second episode' and notes that final release is gated, which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It implies this is an orchestration tool that initiates the episode creation pipeline, particularly seeking out citations, which helps distinguish it from other tools like render_episode or qa_episode.

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 phrase 'Plan a cited 60-second episode' implies this tool is used when an episode needs to be planned with citations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings like research_episode or write_script. There is also no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The context of the sibling tools suggests a pipeline, but no explicit routing is given.

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