rewrite_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does explain the main behavior (rewriting using voice or general rules), but it omits details about side effects, permissions, return format, or any rate limits. It adds only minimal context beyond the literal action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core function and the two modes of operation.

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 tool is simple (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), so the description provides a reasonable high-level overview. However, it lacks usage context, does not clarify the vague 'general writing rules,' and gives no sense of what the tool returns, leaving some gaps.

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 input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'general writing rules,' which is vague and doesn't map cleanly to any parameter (voice, brandId, platform), thus failing to add meaningful semantic value 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 a specific action ('Rewrite text') with a clear resource. It hints at two modes ('voice profile or general writing rules') which helps distinguish from a sibling like rewrite_with_voice, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 closely related tools like rewrite_with_voice or generate_text. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references.

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