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 mentions 'using all techniques' but doesn't explain what these techniques are, whether the enhancement is reversible, what permissions or rate limits apply, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations and an implied mutation ('enhances'), this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from constraints, but overall it's appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 implied complexity (enhancing text with multiple techniques) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'enhance' entails, what techniques are used, or what the result looks like. For a tool that likely modifies content, more context is needed to guide the agent 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('text' and 'expansionTarget'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or contextual usage. However, since the schema adequately documents the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't detract from the schema's clarity.

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 all techniques to meet expansion target', which provides a vague purpose. It specifies the resource ('story page') and goal ('meet expansion target'), but the verb 'enhances' is generic and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_text' or 'custom_enhance_text'. The description lacks specificity about what 'enhance' means operationally.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'analyze_text' or 'custom_enhance_text', nor does it specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage based on the tool name alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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