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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses credit costs (quick 3, full 5), the processing pipeline, the return payload ('improved post plus what it changed and why'), and clarifies that nothing the user owns is modified. Although destructiveHint=false already implies safety, the credit cost and output shape are non-obvious context the description supplies.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and mode routing before the cost caveat. It is somewhat long and dense but nearly every sentence carries actionable detail; minor tightening is possible.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers what an agent needs: mode selection, cost, non-destructiveness, the returned explanation, and the downstream follow-up tool. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both enums (mode, platform) are documented in the schema itself, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description restates mode semantics without adding syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run the user's draft through audenAI's real improve engine') and explicitly distinguishes the two modes' behavior. It differentiates itself from siblings like suggest_hooks and offer_rewrites by naming the exact job it does.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use rules per mode ('use it when they want the post made better' vs 'use it when they want OPTIONS'), plus a named follow-up tool (offer_rewrites) and clear exclusions ('never unprompted, and never twice on the same text').

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