Chop the slop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses determinism and reproducibility ('same input always gives the same output'), cost and locality ('free, runs on this machine, nothing uploaded'), and a concrete safety boundary ('Markdown code blocks and inline backtick spans are left alone'). It also flags the optional model path as requiring a provider API key and a paid call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then progressively adds scope, guarantees, and caveats. The catalogue of AI tells and buzzwords is long but demonstrates scope concretely; a small amount of it could be trimmed without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional, yet the description still names the outputs (cleaned text, tells found, tells left to the user, slop score before/after). Combined with cost, privacy, and exclusion behavior, an agent has nearly everything needed; only the relationship to the check and drift siblings is unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it warns that model_rewrite is off by default, costs money, and needs an API key, and that presets replace the server defaults and can be listed via the presets tool. Dialect is only lightly reinforced, keeping this short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('rewrite text so it reads like a person wrote it'), then enumerates the concrete transformations it performs (em-dash splices, semicolons, hedging, stock openers, buzzwords). The 'de-slop/humanize' framing is distinctive enough to separate it from siblings check, drift, and presets, one of which it explicitly routes to.

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?

Gives four clear use cases ('de-slop or humanize AI-generated text, remove AI tells from a draft, strip em-dashes, or hold writing to a house style') and conditions the paid rewrite path ('ask for it only when the deterministic clean is not enough'). It does not contrast itself with the sibling check or drift tools, so the when-not-this-tool guidance is incomplete.

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