Prepare a rewrite brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description strengthens this by explaining the tool 'does not rewrite anything' and that composing new text is the caller's job. It also reveals the postcondition: the final result must be re-checked with check_listing, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, and the following sentences add essential behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description covers the tool's contract, return nature (spans and substitutions), and required follow-up check. An output schema exists, so the return values do not need full explanation. The main gap is the unexplained state and channel parameters, which keeps this from being fully complete, but the overall context is strong.

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 only 33%; the text parameter is documented in the schema, but state and channel are only given defaults with no explanation. The description does not compensate for these undocumented parameters or explain their role in the rewrite brief, so an agent has to infer their meaning from names and defaults.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it 'collect[s] what must change in a text' via character offsets and replacement wording. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying it 'deliberately does not rewrite anything' and naming check_listing as the follow-up validation step.

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 gives clear context: this tool produces a rewrite brief, the calling model must compose the new text, and the result must be checked with check_listing before publishing. It does not explicitly catalog when to prefer this over explain_rule or get_receipt, but the sequencing and responsibility for composing the final text are clearly stated.

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