workflowmoves_check_blogworthiness

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the call returns a retained background job that must be polled, and that base effect flags are none while inference/download effects are conditional and discoverable via danceflow_component. That is real behavioral context the structured fields do not carry; what is missing is any statement of what the caller acknowledges in the permissions object.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, which is good, but the phrasing is telegraphic to the point of ambiguity — 'Base effect flags: none' is not self-explanatory in the context of a six-flag permissions object. Sentences are compact without being reliably clear.

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 async job lifecycle is covered and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the required 'path' argument is left entirely undefined, which is a direct obstacle to calling the tool correctly. For a tool with a nested permissions object, the description should say what is being validated along that path.

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 50%, and the fully undescribed parameter is the required one: 'path' has only a cryptic negative regex (rejects leading dash-like characters) with no explanation of what path it refers to. The description never mentions path at all and adds nothing about the six permission flags, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource (validate recorded blogworthiness fields) and immediately bounds the claim with 'not editorial truth or publication approval', which keeps it distinct from review/approval siblings. It never compares itself to a named sibling such as workflowmoves_audit_epk_evidence, so the differentiation stops at scope rather than routing.

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 'not editorial truth or publication approval' clause implicitly frames when-to-use, and the polling instruction to danceflow_job_status gives a concrete next step. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites, when NOT to call it, or which sibling to prefer for editorial judgement, so usage is inferred rather than instructed.

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