create_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: status is always forced to 'draft'. However it says nothing about what happens on a duplicate slug despite declaring uniqueness, whether the operation is idempotent, or what identifier is returned for chaining to create_variant.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the pipeline step and the core action, followed by the exclusion and the next step. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, alternative routing, forced draft status, and pipeline sequencing for a 12-parameter creation tool. The remaining gap is the return value (the new content ID needed to call create_variant) and slug-collision behavior, which matter more here since there is no output schema.

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% across all 12 properties, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema fields provide, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new master content item') and immediately scopes it ('directly, without an Idea'), which separates it from the sibling promote_idea. An agent can distinguish this from create_idea, promote_idea, and create_variant without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool (promote_idea) and the condition that selects it (content came from an idea, keeps provenance). It also places the tool in the pipeline and names the next step (create_variant, step 4), leaving nothing to inference.

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