custom_enhance_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'enhances' text, implying a transformation, but doesn't describe the nature of the enhancement, potential side effects, rate limits, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('enhances a story page'). It avoids unnecessary words, but could be more informative given the tool's complexity, making it slightly under-specified rather than perfectly concise.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'enhance' entails, how techniques interact, or what the output looks like, leaving critical gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description mentions 'selected techniques' but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, which already details each enhancement technique and parameter. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage by the schema alone.

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 the tool 'enhances a story page using selected techniques,' which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions the resource ('story page') and verb ('enhances'), but doesn't clarify what 'enhance' means or how it differs from sibling tools like 'enhance_text' and 'analyze_text', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'enhance_text' or 'analyze_text', nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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