text_zwc_embed

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 discloses the encoding process and insertion behavior but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., text length increase), error cases (e.g., message too long), or whether the input text is modified in place.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the mechanism. Every word contributes.

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?

The description explains the core mechanism but lacks details on output (the modified text is not mentioned), limits (max message length), and failure conditions. Given no output schema, some of this context would be helpful.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage. The description adds value by explaining how the message is encoded and inserted, providing context beyond the schema strings 'Cover text' and 'Secret message to embed'.

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 uses a specific verb 'embed' and clearly identifies the resource ('secret message into cover text') and method ('using zero-width characters'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like detect and extract by being the embedding variant.

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 explains how the embedding works technically but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., detect/extract). Usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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