workflowmoves_publicity_inventory

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: the call is asynchronous and returns a retained background job, base effect is a write (consistent with readOnlyHint=false), and inference/download effects are conditional and must be inspected via danceflow_component. It does not address the declared non-idempotent behavior or what is left behind on disk, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and no filler clauses; the cross-tool pointers each earn their place. The telegraphic phrasing ("Base effect flags: write") is slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description needn't explain returns. Still missing for a nested two-parameter async tool: what a publicity candidate is, what root/output should point at, and what permissions must be pre-granted before the write effect is accepted.

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 50% — the required "root" and "output" strings are completely undocumented in both schema and description, so the agent must guess they are local paths (only weakly implied by "bounded local"). The description does add useful meaning for the permissions flags by calling out "write" as the base effect and pointing to danceflow_component for conditional inference/download, partially compensating.

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 ("Inventory bounded local publicity candidates") and adds the key scope constraint that it does not grant send authority, which distinguishes it from send/publish siblings like workflowmoves_wordpress_publish_post. It falls short of 5 because "publicity candidates" is never defined, so an agent cannot tell what is actually being inventoried without opening the 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?

Gives usable follow-up routing: poll danceflow_job_status for the returned job, and inspect danceflow_component for conditional effects. However, it never says when to choose this over near-neighbors like workflowmoves_wordpress_inventory or workflowmoves_outreach_list, nor what prerequisites (permissions, local root) must be satisfied first.

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