ai_rewrite

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

Without annotations, the description discloses it uses a 'free LLM', implying non-deterministic behavior. It only provides the 'plain prose only' constraint, but lacks details on performance, idempotency, or side effects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, each adding unique value. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word is purposeful.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and input constraints. However, it misses any indication of output format or return value, which is a gap.

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 100% with descriptive parameter names and examples for 'style'. The description adds the 'plain prose only' constraint, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Rewrite' and the resource 'plain text', with a specific constraint 'plain prose only'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_summarize or ai_translate, but does not explicitly differentiate them.

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 input constraints ('no code, secrets, or file paths') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ai_bullet or ai_email_draft. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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