seo_create_custom_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is async ('Async — returns { operationId, status }'), that polling is required, that omitting clusterId mints a throwaway cluster ('tagged origin="manual"'), and includes a time estimate (~2–5 min). These are non-obvious behavioral traits that help the agent correctly manage the workflow.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, clusterId behavior, async/polling flow, and follow-up/time estimate. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and tightly structured, with no filler or repeated schema content.

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 complexity (8 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers the essential context: the async job lifecycle, how to poll for completion, how to retrieve the result, and the side effect of the legacy throwaway cluster. The agent can successfully invoke and complete the workflow from this description alone.

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?

The schema already covers all 8 parameters (100% coverage) with descriptive text. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema, only re-explaining clusterId's role and the legacy fallback, which is also in the schema. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a single custom SEO brief on demand' and identifies it as 'the MCP entry point for the generate-one custom-brief flow', which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_create_cluster or seo_get_brief. It names the resource and the action, and even contrasts with the legacy REST path.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use the tool: for creating one custom brief on demand, and gives two distinct usage paths (with or without clusterId). It also provides a clear follow-up workflow: poll get_job and then call seo_get_brief, which is actionable guidance for using the tool correctly.

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