Audit content quality

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces these with 'Read-only' without contradicting them. It adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool reports both the issues and the entity IDs, which is useful behavioral information given there is no output schema. It does not mention potential performance costs of sweeping large content sets, but the schema's limit parameter covers that partially.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and output scope, the second clarifies the read-only nature and the downstream fix path. The checklist of issues is long but each item is specific and 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?

With no output schema, the description does important work by naming the output shape (issues plus IDs) and linking to corrective tools. It could go further by stating the exact response structure or warning about timeouts on large sweeps, but given the schema covers all inputs and the annotations cover safety, the description is adequately complete.

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 100%, and every parameter—type, limit, status, site_id, thin_content_words—already has a clear, meaningful description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Sweep') with a clear resource ('a content type') and enumerates the exact problem categories reported, so the tool's function is unmistakable. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_content, audit_media, or update_content by focusing on quality auditing rather than listing, media-specific checks, or modification.

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 explicitly frames the tool as a read-only diagnostic step and names the follow-up tools (bulk_update_content or update_content) for fixing the issues it finds, which gives an agent a clear workflow. It does not explicitly contrast with other audit-style siblings like audit_media or check_links, but the problem list is specific enough to imply when it applies.

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