Draft content from a Bubble

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds the key behavioral trait that it 'never publishes automatically,' providing a safety guarantee beyond annotations. It doesn't address side effects or response format, but with annotations covering the basic profile, this is sufficient context. A 4 reflects the added safety disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, the first states the action, the second adds a crucial constraint. No filler or redundancy. A 5 is appropriate.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description should have guided the agent on what inputs are needed and what the output looks like. It only mentions the Bubble source and the non-publishing behavior, missing the required format parameter and usage context. Therefore, the description is incomplete.

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% and the description fails to explain any of the 5 parameters beyond implying 'from a Bubble' maps to bubble_id. It doesn't clarify the meaning of 'format,' 'goal,' 'tone,' or 'instructions,' leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and enums. Since the description must compensate for the low coverage and does not, the score is 1.

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 a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('content draft from a Bubble'), with a qualifier 'evidence-based'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings (which are all retrieval/search tools) by being the only generation tool, and the statement 'never publishes' confirms its draft-only scope.

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 implies usage for producing a draft but offers no explicit 'use when' conditions or alternatives. It doesn't reference sibling tools or explain that a Bubble must first be fetched via get_bubbles/get_bubble_details. It only gives a safety guideline about not publishing, which is helpful but insufficient.

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