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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that output is a rewritten canonical form, but says nothing about behavior on invalid or unparsable input, whether the operation is pure/read-only, or how errors surface — a meaningful gap for a transformation tool.

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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded before the motivating use case. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat colloquial rather than informational.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, it omits error behavior and the expected shape of the return value, which the absent output schema leaves undocumented.

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 the single `code` parameter is documented as 'The strategy, in Brighter's language.' The description adds no syntactic or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (rewrite) and resource (strategy) plus the target form (the language's canonical spelling as shown in Studio's editor). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_strategy or check_strategy, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the adjacent check_strategy tool.

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 phrase 'useful for checking that what you wrote means what you think it means' implies a validation/verification use case, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as check_strategy or strategy_schema, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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