seo_approve_briefs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers with rich behavioral detail: auto-firing side effects, typical timing (3–8 min per article), async polling expectations with specific states, and a re-submission warning. It also discloses the response structure, making the tool's behavior fully predictable.

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 every sentence contributes actionable information, but it is a dense single paragraph that interleaves warnings, timing, and response format. Slight restructuring into sections would improve readability, though it remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 asynchronous and stateful nature of this tool, the description covers all critical aspects: side effect (generation), timing, required polling with get_job, handling of in-progress briefs, error states, and the exact response shape. No output schema exists, so this description fully compensates and provides complete operational context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only re-states briefIds (array, max 200) and does not add meaning beyond the schema's built-in descriptions for brandId and generateHeroImage. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 function: approves one or more SeoBriefs and auto-fires L4 article/comparison generation. It distinguishes from the sibling tool seo_write_article by explicitly warning not to call seo_write_article after this.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including that this tool triggers generation immediately and that seo_write_article should not be called afterwards. It also instructs on polling with get_job and how to handle briefs already in 'writing' status, preventing duplicate submissions.

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