generate_seo_metadata

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 meaningful output behavior: five named archetypes, a hard '<60 characters' constraint, two image-prompt dialects, and the returned fields (description, tags). It says nothing about prerequisites (which transcript source is accepted, whether one is required), cost/latency of the generation, or whether existingTitle changes output shape.

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 with zero filler, and the primary deliverable is front-loaded before the secondary return values. Nothing is repeated from the schema or restated from the name.

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?

A nested-object, three-parameter generation tool with an undocumented context block and no output schema needs the description to explain how to feed a transcript and what context knobs exist. Those gaps are significant even though the return-value summary is good for a tool with 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 only 33% and the description does not compensate: the entire `context` object (tone, contentType, spoilerPolicy, targetDurationSec) and `existingTitle` are never mentioned, and the three alternative transcript sources (filePath / youtubeUrl / rawTranscript) are not explained. The one constraint it states (60-char titles) is an output rule, not a parameter rule.

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?

Specific verb+resource with concrete deliverables: a five-archetype title matrix (named archetypes), a thumbnail brief in Midjourney and Flux formats, plus description and tags. An agent immediately knows what it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like generate_chapters or extract_shorts_hooks, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools that also operate on transcripts. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this or extract_shorts_hooks is the right call for title/hook work.

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