create_variant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: it enumerates the allowed platform and format values (a validation constraint absent from the schema's enums) and tells the agent that variant.id is the handoff artefact. However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether creation fails on duplicate platform+format for the same content, or what the created record contains beyond an id.

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?

Two dense sentences: the first front-loads the pipeline role and purpose, the second carries the enumerations and the downstream handoff. No filler, no restatement of the name, and every clause is actionable.

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 7-parameter write tool with a nested platform_settings object and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, allowed values and output handoff well, but the nested object is hand-waved ('Postiz DTO pattern') and there is no statement of what the call returns beyond an id hint. Adequate, with a clear gap around the structured settings parameter.

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 baseline is 3, but the schema defers enum values to the description ('see description for allowed values') and lists 0 enums — the description is the only place the closed sets for platform and format exist, making it load-bearing rather than redundant. It still leaves platform_settings ('Postiz DTO pattern') and hashtags/body_text usage unexplained.

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 platform/format-specific variant of a master Content') and scopes it to a pipeline position ('Pipeline step 4 — Adapt'), which cleanly separates it from create_content (the master) and update_variant (modification of an existing variant). An agent can route to it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives clear context: this is step 4 of a pipeline, its input is a master Content, and its output feeds explicitly named downstream tools (create_blog_post_from_markdown / create_carousel / send_newsletter / link_video_project_to_variant). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. variant already exists → update_variant), so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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