Start Blog Review

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

The description discloses background execution, asynchronous return behavior (task_id, status pending), and the merge logic for instructions and instructions_file. It also mentions the Gemini API key requirement, which aligns with the openWorldHint annotation. No contradictions found.

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 well-structured with sections and bullet points, but it repeats some parameter information (focus/model) in both the header sections and the Args list, creating minor 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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, return values, background execution, and API key authentication. It provides a complete picture for an agent, especially given the absence of schema-defined parameters.

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?

Despite the input schema being empty, the description thoroughly documents each parameter with defaults and interactions. It explains the merging of instructions and instructions_file, fully compensating for the lack of schema-defined 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 description clearly states that it starts a blog review in the background, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'blog_start_draft' by focusing on the review action.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (for reviewing a draft or existing task) and hints at a workflow with prior drafting. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of the highest tier.

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