generate_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: spending a credit (a resource) and queuing after approval (asynchronous, requires authorization). However, it omits details like what if no credits remain, whether the generation is cancellable, or what happens if approval is denied. The disclosure is moderate but not thorough.

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 a single short sentence, making it concise. However, it is overly brief; it could be expanded to include parameter explanations or usage hints without being verbose. The lack of structure (e.g., no bullet points or sections) is acceptable for a simple tool but borderline insufficient.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that is not referenced), the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error conditions, parameter dependencies, or the approval workflow. The output schema exists but its purpose is unmentioned, leaving the agent with gaps.

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?

The description does not explain any of the five parameters (project_id, workflow_id, title, brief, primary_keyword). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no additional meaning beyond parameter names. For a tool with multiple required and optional parameters, the description fails to clarify roles, constraints, or formats.

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 ('queue an article'), the resource ('article'), and the cost/requirement ('spend one available credit', 'after user approval'). It distinguishes from siblings by implying a generation action rather than listing or publishing, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'publish_article' or 'change_article_state'.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'publish_article' for immediate publishing or 'list_articles' for reading. It mentions 'after user approval' but does not explain prerequisites or context like when credits are needed or what the approval workflow entails.

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