improve-copy

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool improves text but does not disclose what happens to the original text, whether the output is transformed, or any side effects. More detail is needed for a transformation tool.

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 sentence listing focus areas, which is concise and front-loaded. No redundant information, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separated by aspect).

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description lacks crucial information such as what the tool returns (e.g., improved text). It does not cover the return value or the workflow, leaving the agent uncertain about the result.

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. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions improving text without elaborating on parameters. Schema already provides decent descriptions.

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 improves text, documentation, or messaging, listing specific focus areas like clarity, conciseness, tone, structure, technical accuracy, and accessibility. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 'consult' or 'solve-problem' which address different tasks.

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 implies usage for improving text but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suggest-alternative' or 'consult'. There are no when-not or exclusion criteria.

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