repurpose_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that PostKing handles all URL crawling internally and clarifies detail levels. However, it does not state whether generated content is saved to the library, whether credits are consumed, or whether any side effects occur, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a creation-oriented 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence, follows with a high-priority caveat, and then lists supported types and the detail parameter. Every sentence contributes actionable information without repetition or fluff.

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 the tool has 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision points: source and target types, URL handling, and output verbosity via detail. It relies on the schema for individual parameter details (which is acceptable given 93% coverage), but the lack of an output schema means the overall return structure is only partially explained through the detail-level descriptions.

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?

Although the schema already describes most parameters (93% coverage), the description adds crucial semantic value by emphasizing that sourceUrl must be passed directly and that the agent should not fetch or crawl the URL itself. It also summarizes source/target enums in a scannable way, reinforcing the parameter relationships beyond the schema.

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 phrase ('Turn a URL, text, blog post, or existing PostKing post into new content') that clearly identifies the tool's resource and function. It also enumerates valid source and target types, distinguishing this repurposing capability from generic content generation tools like generate_post.

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 provides clear operational guidance, most notably the instruction to pass URLs directly via sourceUrl and not to crawl them first, which prevents redundant agent behavior. It implies when to use the tool (when repurposing existing content) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving room for clearer alternative selection.

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