Lancer la rédaction d'une idée

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds the 'automatic writing' aspect, implying an async process, but doesn't disclose side effects, whether it overwrites existing content, or what the response looks like. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description provides only marginal additional behavioral context.

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—one sentence with a dash-separated note. It front-loads the action and includes the HTTP endpoint, which is useful for debugging. No unnecessary fluff, though the endpoint could be considered extra. Overall, efficient and well-structured.

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 write operation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't state what happens after launching (e.g., creates a content draft, runs in background, takes time), nor does it mention required parameters (siteId, id) or optional format. An agent would need additional context to call this correctly and anticipate outcomes.

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% (only siteId is described). The description mentions no parameters at all—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to or how 'format' affects the output. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess about parameter semantics.

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 action: 'Lance ou relance la rédaction automatique d'une idée existante' (Launches or relaunches automatic writing of an existing idea). It specifies the verb (launch/relaunch), the resource (an existing idea), and distinguishes from siblings like createContent (which creates new) and getContentIdea (which retrieves). This is specific and not a tautology.

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 implies usage: you call this to trigger or retrigger content generation for an existing idea. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but given siblings like createContent and getContentIdea, the context is reasonably clear. A slightly more explicit exclusion (e.g., 'use createContent for new ideas') would elevate it, but it's acceptable.

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