Remix a viral hook text for a different product using AI. IMPORTANT: Never name competitors (Duolingo, Babbel, etc.) in the remixed hook. Use generic terms like 'language apps' or 'other apps' instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| originalHook | Yes | The original viral hook text | |
| productDescription | Yes | Description of the product to adapt the hook for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add a genuinely useful constraint beyond the schema — never name competitors, use generic terms like 'language apps' — which is real behavioral guidance. However, it says nothing about output format, cost/credits, or whether the remix is generated fresh versus derived from the source hook.
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 sentences, zero waste. The core action comes first and the hard constraint is flagged with 'IMPORTANT' so it is unlikely to be skimmed past.
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 simple two-required-parameter generative tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does and the main content constraint. It is adequate but silent on return shape and any credit/usage implications, which matter for an AI generation call.
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 100% and both parameters (originalHook, productDescription) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, length, or format guidance for either parameter.
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 (remix) and resource (viral hook text) with the key qualifier 'for a different product using AI.' It does not distinguish itself from the related sibling analyze_hook, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied: use this to adapt an existing hook to another product. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no reference to sibling tools such as analyze_hook or suggest_captions, leaving the agent to infer the workflow position.
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.
