teneo_generate_book

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses asynchronous execution, an immediate jobId return, an expected ~45 min completion, the required polling step, and that the operation is charged in credits to the funded account. The schema separately surfaces idempotency for retry-safety.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and deliverables, then the async/billing mechanics, then the usage boundary. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 an async tool with no output schema or annotations, it covers the essential workflow: what it returns, how long it takes, the next step, and cost model. It could say a bit more about the three undocumented parameters, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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 description coverage is 63%, so several params (author_name, output_formats, number_of_chapters) are undocumented in both places. The description names the overall input concept ('topic/spec') but adds no per-parameter semantics, making it a minimum-viable baseline rather than compensating for the gaps.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (COMPLETE, publish-ready non-fiction book) and enumerates the deliverables (manuscript + cover + PDF/EPUB/DOCX). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming teneo_book_status as the follow-up and explicitly excluding fiction/short answers.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (finished book/manuscript, KDP-ready files) and when-not (not a short answer, not fiction), and routes the agent to teneo_book_status for polling. Nothing is left to inference.

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