seo_edit_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses critical side effects: 'Approving via this tool fires L4 article/comparison generation immediately and returns { brief, operationId }.' It also highlights the structured refinement constraint and indicates the canonical approval path. However, it does not describe what happens on 'rejected' status or what a non-approval edit returns, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the constraint about no free-text instructions, briefData/status usage, the side effect of approval, and the typical refinement loop. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a strong workflow context: the refinement loop, the approval alternative, and the return shape for approval. However, it does not specify the return value for simple edits, nor does it mention conditional param restrictions like generateHeroImage only being valid for article-type briefs (though the schema covers that). Overall, it is nearly complete but leaves some path-specific gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains briefData as 'the full replacement JSON for the brief outline — H2s, FAQs, keyword targets, etc.' and clarifies the role of status and the refinement loop. This extra semantic value raises it above baseline.

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 'Edit an SeoBrief before approval,' which clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling seo_approve_briefs by explicitly saying 'prefer seo_approve_briefs for the canonical approval step,' making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it says the inner route does not accept free-text 'instructions' and provides a typical refinement loop (seo_get_brief → mutate → seo_edit_brief → seo_approve_briefs). It also names an alternative tool for approval, which helps an agent decide correctly.

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