bh_create_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is asynchronous: 'Returns a receipt immediately; post appears in dashboard within minutes.' It also reveals a processing pipeline (SEO brief → RAG evidence → BullMQ job). It does not cover failure modes, permissions, or what happens if both title and topic are supplied, but the key async behavior is well communicated.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The pipeline chain 'SEO brief → RAG evidence → BullMQ job' is dense and jargon-heavy, which slightly weakens clarity, but it earns its place by explaining the AI generation behavior. Overall efficient and focused.

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 conveys the primary workflow and async result, which is good for a create tool with no output schema. However, it leaves gaps around mode selection: there are no required parameters, so the agent could invoke with an empty object, and it is unclear whether title and topic are mutually exclusive. The absence of any expected receipt shape or error behavior further limits completeness for a moderately complex 7-parameter 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter. The description adds value by recommending 'topic' as the high-quality path and noting the async receipt, but it does not detail parameter interactions or format requirements beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is explicit: 'Create a blog post' names the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling read/generation tools like bh_list_posts and bh_generate_ideas by framing creation as its core purpose. The mention of 'AI generation' versus manual creation adds useful scope without ambiguity.

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 modes by recommending 'topic' for AI generation and leaving manual fields to the schema, but it never states when to choose manual versus AI generation. It also does not reference any sibling tool as an alternative or exclusion, such as using bh_generate_ideas first. The guidance is usable but mostly implicit.

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