Improve a generation prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It warns that the rewriter can invent style references that do not exist, which is a critical transparency disclosure. It also clearly states the tool returns improved prompt text, making the output behavior explicit. Missing details about rate limits or cost, but for a simple prompt rewrite this is sufficient.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states the action, the second gives usage and a critical warning. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and well-documented schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the return value (improved prompt text), its intended usage (base for estimate/create), and provides a crucial warning about potential inaccuracies. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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 provides complete descriptions for all parameters, including style hints, prompt, and modality. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already covers, such as elaborating on how style interacts with modality. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool rewrites a draft prompt into a stronger one for a given modality, using a specific verb (rewrite) and resource (draft prompt). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deepy_create_generation or deepy_list_models, as it's specifically about improving prompts rather than generating or managing resources.

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 explicitly says to use the improved prompt as the base in estimate/create, giving clear context on when this tool fits in the workflow. It also advises reviewing the output first, which is important usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative options, so it falls short of a full 5.

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