content_refine

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: false, so the bar is lower. The description adds context about routing and scope but does not elaborate on specific side effects or what 'refine' actually does, so it only partially contributes 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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a sentence on routing/scope, and a compact parameter list. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simplicity (a generic action dispatcher) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what it does, how it routes, and the parameters, without needing to explain return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does so by describing 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, which provides useful semantics even though they remain somewhat high-level.

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 'Run' and the resource 'content domain agent action refine', making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling tools, so it misses the highest score.

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 operational context about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher and mentions JWT/tenant/company scope, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on situations where this tool should be preferred over other similar action dispatchers.

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