Build writing brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it delivers: it discloses refusal behavior, verification criteria, warning marking for out-of-window findings, trust levels for the research origin, and return fields (seed, researchOrigin, warnings). This goes well beyond what the schema provides.

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 dense single paragraph, but most sentences carry operational rules (refusal, verification, asking the user). It is front-loaded with purpose and avoids filler, though the all-caps emphasis and some repetition of schema text slightly reduce elegance.

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 9-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description addresses the main ambiguity (research origins) and tells the agent what to return (seed, researchOrigin, warnings). It doesn't describe the brief's output format or side effects, but these are less critical than research handling. It is largely complete for safe invocation.

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 only 33%, so the description must add meaning. It does for the critical parameters research/findings/mode, explaining mutual exclusivity, mandatory news-mode research, and how to choose them, but persona, word_count, language, and seed are left self-evident. Overall it compensates for the low coverage on the high-stakes parameters.

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 opening sentence uses the specific verb 'Build' with a concrete deliverable ('randomized, persona-specific writing brief') and scope ('voice, structure, visual blocks, AEO and GEO'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like research_topic (research only) and create_post (publishing).

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?

It explicitly states RESEARCH IS MANDATORY IN NEWS MODE, gives exactly one origin, and says passing both is refused. It also directs the agent to ASK THE USER when unclear and to use blog mode for evergreen topics, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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