Perplexity: Write an article or copy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds some context via "same engine and result shape as perplexity_ask" and "editorial default task," but it does not disclose mutation side effects such as file overwrite behavior or auth requirements.

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 with no wasted phrasing. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by examples and the sibling comparison.

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?

Given the rich input schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, content types, and result-shape expectations. Since there is no output schema, the reference to perplexity_ask's result shape is useful, though additional output or operational detail could improve completeness for a 15-parameter write tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage across all 15 parameters, the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden. The description adds only a high-level note about result shape and default editorial task, without elaborating on specific parameters like out, force, thread, or mode.

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: "Write publication-shaped content with the Perplexity app," then enumerates article, marketing copy, social post, report, translation, and rewrite. It also distinguishes itself from perplexity_ask by noting the shared engine/result shape but an editorial default task.

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 a clear usage context for writing publication-shaped content and references perplexity_ask as the related sibling with an editorial default difference. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or give an explicit alternative routing rule.

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