seo_categorize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (tagging) but does not explain potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing tags, reversibility, permissions, or error behavior). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. The example is compact and directly demonstrates usage without unnecessary detail.

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 relatively simple tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: its position in the workflow, the input format with an example, and the next step. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, given the sibling tools and schema information.

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 adds value beyond the schema by explicitly listing the intent enum values and providing a JSON example that clarifies how the 'updates' array should be structured. This helps the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 purpose: 'Tag keywords by search intent and/or user tags.' It also positions it as 'Step 3 of the SEO / GEO flow,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools and clarifies its role in the workflow.

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 says 'Step 3 of the SEO / GEO flow' and explicitly mentions the next step ('After this, call seo_generate_clusters'). This provides clear context on when to use the tool, though it doesn't list exclusions or alternative tools. The example also clarifies the expected input format.

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