Create Letter

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

Annotations are all false, so the description must explain side effects. It does state that the public archive updates immediately, which is useful, but it omits the published flag's impact on visibility and doesn't mention duplicate slug handling. The 'Publish' wording could mislead if published defaults to false.

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 fluff. Front-loaded verb 'Publish' immediately conveys intent, and the required fields list is efficient. Well-structured for quick scanning.

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 a simple create tool with no output schema, the description covers essentials but leaves ambiguity around the published flag and default visibility. It does not describe the response, but that is less critical. The missing published nuance is a notable gap.

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 high (5/6 properties have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a list of required fields and notes body is markdown, but this largely duplicates schema info. The 'published' parameter is not mentioned in the description.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Publish a new Playbook letter') and identifies the resource. It lists required fields and notes the immediate public archive update, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_letter, delete_letter, and list_letters.

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 word 'new' implies it is for creating letters, not updating or deleting, and siblings make this clearer. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus update_letter or whether certain prerequisites exist. It relies on sibling names for context.

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