pylon_create_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only repeats the operation name and does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, default behaviors (e.g., is_published default false), or response format. This is essentially a tautology of the tool name.

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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It restates the tool name without adding informative content. Every word should add value, but here it doesn't.

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 complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, 4 required fields) and lack of output schema or annotations, a one-sentence description is completely inadequate. There is no mention of return behavior, prerequisites, or how nested objects like visibility_config interact with other parameters.

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?

All 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema, meeting the 100% coverage threshold, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it doesn't mention defaults, relationships, or important considerations beyond the schema.

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 specific action (create) and resource (article within a knowledge base). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_article, delete_article, and list_articles by specifying 'new article'. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., existence of a knowledge base) or scenarios where update_article would be more appropriate. The only implied usage is that it creates a new article, but this is evident from the name.

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