tsm_rewrite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the behavioral guarantee 'without changing the core facts' and lists the available styles. However, it does not disclose other traits like whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or output format. The guarantee is useful but incomplete for full transparency.

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 a single sentence with a parenthetical list of styles. It is concise with zero wasted words, front-loading the core purpose and key details efficiently.

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 no output schema, the description explains the tool transforms text style and preserves facts, which is fairly complete for a simple rewriting tool. It covers the key operations and highlights translation capabilities. Minor omission: no mention of output format, but it is implicitly the rewritten text.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description restates the style enum but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions. For high coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate beyond that.

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 verb 'Rewrite', the resource 'text', and the action 'in a different style' while preserving core facts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tsm_classify and tsm_summarize by focusing on style transformation rather than classification or summarization.

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 provides a list of styles (concise, formal, technical, friendly, translation) implying usage for style changes only. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, such as not to use for summarization or classification. The sibling tools are distinct enough that context is implied, but not explicitly stated.

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