generate_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is a queue (async) and returns immediately, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe the return value, error conditions, or side effects (e.g., does it overwrite existing drafts?), leaving gaps.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a key behavioral note ('Returns immediately'). Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple one-parameter async tool, the description covers the main action and behavior. It lacks details on what the immediate return is (e.g., a job ID) and how to check status (e.g., get_article or get_draft), but given the low complexity and rich sibling set, it is reasonably complete.

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 documents the only parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about 'article_id' beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline without extra value.

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 ('Queue') and resource ('article for AI generation') with scope (research, outline, draft, voice check), clearly stating the tool's function. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'generate_draft', the broader pipeline context makes the purpose reasonably clear.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_draft or regenerate_article. The phrase 'Returns immediately' implies asynchronous usage, but there is no exclusions, alternatives, or context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the article must exist).

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