Humanize text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the underlying model ('GoHumanize Open Humanizer, a small open model (Qwen3-4B fine-tune)'), its training data ('public-domain prose'), processing behavior for long inputs, and a key limitation ('Educational model: no claim about AI detectors'). This is rich behavioral context beyond a simple action statement.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose, the second provides model and length details, and the third clarifies the educational limitation. Every sentence contributes actionable information and the most important content is front-loaded.

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-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, model, usage constraints, and limitations. An agent has everything it needs to decide whether and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning to the 'text' parameter by specifying the ideal length range ('50 to 400 words') and how longer inputs are handled ('processed paragraph by paragraph'). This goes beyond the schema's bare 'The text to rewrite (English)'.

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 specific verb ('Rewrite'), resource ('a passage of AI-styled English prose'), and the transformation goal ('reads more like a person wrote it'). It also specifies what is preserved ('meaning, facts and order of ideas'), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from the sibling 'about_open_humanizer', which is clearly informational.

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 usage context: 'Best on passages of 50 to 400 words; longer inputs are processed paragraph by paragraph.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate and how it handles longer inputs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for typical selection.

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