content_refine

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions authentication/authorization scope (JWT, tenant, company). It does not disclose whether the action is destructive, idempotent, or has side effects. The word 'refine' implies modification, but no confirmation is given.

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 very concise, with two short paragraphs that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningful information (mechanism, args), with no fluff or repetition.

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 simplicity (two optional params, output schema exists), the description is incomplete for decision-making. It fails to explain the action's outcome, how it compares to similar tools, or what the output represents. The agent cannot confidently select this tool over siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds meaning beyond the schema's default and title. However, it lacks specifics on the expected format or constraints.

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 it runs the 'refine' action in the content domain, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explain what 'refine' actually does (e.g., refine content based on feedback?), leaving the purpose vague. It offers no differentiation from sibling tools like content_generate_content or content_repurpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other content tools. The description merely describes the mechanism (routing through dispatcher) without contextualizing the typical use case or prerequisites.

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