Turkish-aware text transforms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful motivation (LLM case-folding errors) but says nothing about the output form, e.g. whether slug/ascii return empty strings for unsupported characters or how whitespace is handled. That rationale is value-add, but behavioral disclosure is thin.

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 short sentences with zero waste: the capability list comes first, followed by the reason to prefer this tool. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter, closed-world string transform with no output schema, the agent has everything needed to pick an operation and call it. Only the exact shape of the returned string (and edge-case behavior of slug/ascii) is left implicit, which is a small gap rather than a blocking one.

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 carry the load, and it largely does: 'upper/lower/title case', 'ASCII transliteration' and 'URL slugs' map onto all five enum values of 'operation'. The 'text' parameter needs no explanation for a pure transform. Minor residual gap: no guidance on what slug does with non-ASCII or punctuation.

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 ('Correct') plus concrete resources (Turkish upper/lower/title case, ASCII transliteration, URL slugs) and even names the exact characters that make it hard (i/İ, ı/I). It is instantly distinguishable from the numeric, date and validation siblings. It stops short of a 5 only because the five operations are embedded in prose rather than mapped one-to-one to the enum values.

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?

'LLMs often get the dotted/dotless i wrong; use this instead' is an explicit routing cue telling the agent to prefer this tool over native/naive string handling. There are no alternative tools in the sibling list that overlap, so no exclusions are needed. It lacks a 'when not to use' clause, keeping it below 5.

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