Créer un contenu (rédaction automatique)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description need not restate that it writes. It adds the behavioral detail that draft=true creates an idea without launching the writing, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, return values, or asynchronous behavior. The description adds some value beyond annotations but is not rich.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses em-dashes to separate key aspects, making it scannable. It includes the endpoint, which is useful. It could be slightly clearer about the requirement of exactly one source, but it is efficient and not verbose.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., content ID, status), nor does it explain the format parameter (discover/article/guide) or the optional author/persona/category parameters. The lack of output information is a significant gap for an agent needing to confirm success. The description covers the core source selection and draft but leaves much unspecified.

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 10% (siteId). The description compensates for the most critical parameters by explaining the source selection (expression, url, urls, keyword_id) and draft, which are not described in the schema. However, it leaves format, author_id, persona_id, and category_id unexplained, and these may require additional context for correct usage. Overall, the description adds meaningful semantics for key parameters but not all.

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 the tool creates content via automatic writing, lists the four possible input sources (expression, url, urls, keyword_id), and explains the draft mode. This distinguishes it from siblings like getContentIdea or writeContentIdea, which operate on ideas rather than creating content directly. The verb 'Créer' and resource 'contenu' are explicit.

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 guidance on how to choose among the source parameters (one of expression, url, urls, keyword_id) and explains the draft flag. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like createPage or writeContentIdea. The context is implied but not contrasted with other tools.

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