seo_write_article

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: credit consumption ('Uses credits'), latency ('Typically takes ~3–8 min'), return value ('Returns an articleId'), and a critical trap (avoiding duplicate generation when status is 'writing'). This goes well beyond a basic description and helps the agent avoid costly mistakes.

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 longer than average, but every clause serves a purpose: alternative path, status check, duration, preconditions, and return. It is front-loaded with the most critical warning. While slightly dense, it remains well-organized and scannable.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers nearly all necessary context: prerequisites, duration, cost, return type, and related tools. It even instructs on how to handle edge cases (status 'writing', 'drafted', 'pending_review'). This is comprehensive for a complex workflow tool.

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 75%, so most parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds context by tying roadmapItemId to the brief status, but it doesn't elaborate on 'count' or 'brandId' beyond what the schema already indicates. Overall, the description adds moderate value but relies on the schema for parameter details.

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: 'Draft a full blog article for a roadmap item.' It also distinguishes itself as an 'ALTERNATIVE write path' compared to seo_approve_briefs, which auto-generates. This specific verb+resource combination separates it from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'only call this when a brief was NOT approved via seo_approve_briefs' and 'If the brief status is `writing`, poll... rather than calling this again.' It also lists preconditions and alternative workflows with specific sibling tool names, making it exceptionally actionable.

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