seo_generate_roadmap

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

There are no annotations, so the description must explain behavior. It does state the core transformation and input selection behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether an existing roadmap is overwritten, whether clusters must be approved, or any prerequisites beyond the input IDs.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, explains parameters in the second sentence, and provides next-step guidance in the third. Every sentence adds value.

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's moderate complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details and workflow position. It does not describe the returned roadmap structure, but sibling tools like seo_list_roadmap and seo_roadmap_get cover retrieval, making this acceptable.

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?

While the schema already describes each parameter at 100% coverage, the description adds critical semantics: the either/or relationship between clusterId and clusterIds, and the 'omit both to roadmap all clusters' default. This goes beyond the schema's simple per-field descriptions and clarifies invocation choices.

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 ('Turn') and clearly defines the resource and outcome: 'clusters' into a 'prioritized content roadmap of blog articles'. It distinguishes itself from sibling roadmap tools by emphasizing generation rather than listing or editing existing roadmaps.

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 explicitly places the tool as 'Step 6' in a workflow, tells the caller exactly which parameters to pass (clusterId or clusterIds, or omit both), and names the next step (seo_write_article). This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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