import_blog_articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal key outcomes (creates drafts, returns id+title+slug by default, detail='medium' for wordCount), but it doesn't cover potential failure modes, duplicate handling, required permissions, or whether imports are reversible. This is more than a bare 'import' but still leaves significant unknowns for a mutation tool.

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 the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds precise output behavior and a sibling-tool pointer. No redundancy with schema fields; every clause 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 no output schema and 5 parameters (2 required), the description covers the essential success path: what the tool does, what it returns by default, and how to get more detail. It omits failure behavior and the limit parameter, but the schema documents limit well, and the pointer to get_blog_article helps agents inspect results. Reasonably complete for an import/draft tool.

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 coverage is 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by pinning down the meaning of detail: 'use detail="medium" for wordCount' and clarifying the default short output as id+title+slug. However, it does not explain limit or brandId semantics beyond what the schema already states, and the 'title+slug' vs schema's 'primary label+status' could be slightly ambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Import articles from an external blog, RSS feed, or Blogger URL into a PostKing publication as drafts.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_blog_article or import_asset_from_url, and the destination/draft state is explicit.

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 gives concrete guidance on when to use the tool (for external blogs/RSS/Blogger imports) and explicitly directs users to get_blog_article for inspecting individual articles. It also hints at detail-level usage, though it doesn't discuss when an alternative import method (e.g., import_assets_csv) might be preferred.

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