Rewrite text to sound human in a persona's voice.
``persona_id`` is required (call ``list_personas`` first). A blank value is
rejected before any credit is spent. ``platform`` is an optional mode
("linkedin") that tightens the opening hook for that platform.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| context | No | ||
| platform | No | ||
| persona_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: blank persona_id is rejected before credit is spent, and platform mode tightens the opening hook. It also implies credit usage and dependency on list_personas. Missing details like rate limits and side effects are not disclosed, but the description goes beyond core purpose.
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 three concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second provides prerequisite and validation info, and the third covers an optional mode. No wasted words.
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 moderate-complexity tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the main behavior, prerequisites, and error handling, but misses the context parameter entirely. Overall, it provides sufficient guidance for an agent to select and invoke the 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains text (rewritten), persona_id (required, blank rejected), and platform (optional 'linkedin' mode). The context parameter is left undocumented, which is a gap, but the other parameters are well explained.
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 to sound human in a persona's voice, which is a specific verb+resource. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like get_balance and list_personas.
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?
Provides clear usage context including a prerequisite (call list_personas first), required persona_id, and optional platform mode. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond list_personas.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct function: checking balance, listing personas, and rewriting text. There is no overlap in their purposes, making selection unambiguous.
All tools use lowercase snake_case with verb-first naming (get_balance, humanize, list_personas). While 'humanize' lacks a direct object, it follows the same imperative style and the pattern is consistent.
Three tools is a well-scoped size for a focused utility server. Each tool serves a clear, necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The core humanization workflow is covered (list_personas then humanize), but the mention of custom personas suggests missing management operations (create/update/delete). get_balance is auxiliary. Minor gap.