create_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema by explaining the multi-step flow (opens editor, fills title, fills body, optionally publishes), which helps the agent understand side effects. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, failure behavior, whether an existing draft is overwritten, and what is returned.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the flow breakdown, with no filler. Only minor waste is the redundant restatement of what the schema already defines.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool with six parameters, the description covers the core flow but not enough to be fully self-sufficient. It omits image/header handling, the format parameter's effect, draft-vs-publish outcomes, and error/failure semantics, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 title, content, format, publish, bodyImages, and headerImage. The description adds only marginal meaning, echoing title/body and the optionality of publish, and says nothing about format, image handling, or draft vs. live semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Create and publish a Twitter/X article (long-form content)') and immediately clarifies scope versus the granular siblings by stating it handles the composite flow of open editor, fill title, fill body, and publish. An agent can distinguish it from open_article_editor, fill_article_title, fill_article_body, and publish_article 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?

The description implies when to use it (for the end-to-end flow rather than the individual step tools) and notes that publishing is 'optional', but it never explicitly says to prefer this over the granular siblings or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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