seo_publish_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavior: the possibility of FREE_CAP_REACHED with a checkoutUrl. However, it does not mention other important behaviors such as article status changes, return values, or prerequisites, leaving the transparency only partial.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with front-loaded purpose and a critical warning. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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?

The description covers the core action and a notable error, but lacks information about success return values, prerequisites (e.g., whether the article needs approval), and downstream effects. Since there is no output schema, this missing context lowers the completeness score for a publishing action.

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 all five parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Publish or schedule'), the specific resource ('roadmap-generated article'), and the destination ('to a publication'). It also situates the tool within a workflow ('Step 10'), distinguishing it from generic publication tools in the sibling list.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'roadmap-generated article' and 'Step 10' in a workflow, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like publish_blog_article or schedule_blog_article, nor does it state when not to use it. The free-tier warning is more about error handling than usage guidance.

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