create_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states that it creates an article and mentions the brief/custom source distinction; it does not disclose return value, required permissions, side effects, or whether it triggers content generation. For a mutation tool, this level of transparency is insufficient.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Create a new article') and free of filler. Every word contributes, making it appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits expected return behavior, other valid source types, and any context distinguishing this from generate_article or update_article. The schema richly covers parameters, but the overall behavioral context is incomplete.

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 the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds the source_type=brief/source_id relationship and mentions the custom mode, but this information largely mirrors the schema's own descriptions. It does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('Create a new article') and adds the source distinction (brief or custom), making the core purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like generate_article, and it omits several source_type enum values (growth_priority, content_gap, quick_win), which limits full differentiation.

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 when to use the tool ('Can be from a brief ... or custom'), which gives some contextual framing. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance, alternative tool references, or clear exclusions, so the usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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