ghost_create_newsletter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates a channel, but does not mention side effects, whether the newsletter becomes active immediately, need for additional setup, or any post-creation implications. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose immediately. While it could include a bit more detail, the brevity is not excessive; it's acceptable for a simple action statement.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the implications of creating a newsletter (e.g., whether it is immediately sent, how it relates to existing members, or any typical workflow steps). An agent would have to rely entirely on the parameter descriptions and guess at overall behavior, which is inadequate for a complex creation 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?

The schema has 100% coverage, meaning each parameter includes a description (e.g., 'Name of the newsletter', 'Opt in existing members automatically'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, which already documents parameter intent. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('email newsletter channel'), with context ('for the Ghost publication'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by the verb 'create' versus 'get', 'update', 'list', so an agent can identify it as the creation operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like ghost_update_newsletter, so it's not a full 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus others, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action. There is no mention of alternatives despite siblings like ghost_update_newsletter or ghost_list_newsletters, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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