rednote_rewrite_in_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'rewrite content' and 'provides guidelines', creating ambiguity about whether the tool returns rewritten content or just guidelines. It does not disclose whether content is modified, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This is insufficient for a rewriting tool.

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 front-loaded with the key action. The summary line is followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. It achieves efficiency without sacrificing clarity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return format. It ambiguously says 'provides guidelines' but doesn't specify if the output is rewritten text or step-by-step instructions. It also doesn't mention error conditions, prerequisites, or limitations. It covers parameters and style options, but lacks output specification.

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 description provides docstring-style explanations for each parameter: 'content: The original content to rewrite', 'style: Target style - ...', 'reference_note_id: Optional note ID to use as style reference'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which has no descriptions and only names/types. It covers all three parameters well.

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 'Rewrite content in RedNote style' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like generate_post (which creates new posts) and analyze_note (which analyzes). The mention of 'proper formatting and hooks' gives a precise purpose.

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 implies usage when you have existing content and want a RedNote-style rewrite. It lists style options ('干货', '情绪', etc.) that suggest scenarios, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No 'if you need X, use Y' guidance.

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