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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that the rewrite preserves meaning, facts, links, and format, and returns notes on changes. However, no additional behavioral traits beyond annotations are disclosed, and the mutation nature is already implied by annotations.

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 concise sentences: the first covers the core action and output, the second explains optional parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, output, and parameter usage. It does not repeat schema details like the required text parameter or max length, but the schema already handles that. Minor gap: no mention of the output format, but output schema exists.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that tone wins over project tone, and that projectId uses the project's tone and writing instructions. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's literal descriptions.

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 rewrites text into a human voice, preserving meaning, facts, links, and format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on rewriting existing content rather than generating new content or deriving content.

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 explains when to use optional parameters (projectId for project tone, type for channel style, tone for direct override) but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives. Some guidance is present, but exclusions are missing.

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