rewrite_for_platforms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the cost ('Costs 1 AI credit per platform'), which is useful, and hints at platform-specific adjustments. However, it does not mention permission requirements, reversibility, what happens with multiple platforms (e.g., returns multiple rewrites), or any other side effects. The cost disclosure is a positive but incomplete.

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 terse sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately state the cost. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition. Efficiency is excellent.

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 complexity (4 params, 20 platform options, multi-platform support) and the lack of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error behavior, how the 'tone' override interacts with platform defaults, or how costs accumulate for multiple platforms beyond the per-platform statement. An agent would likely need to probe the tool or rely on external knowledge to use it confidently.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate. It does not explain 'tone' beyond the schema's minimal 'Optional user-defined tone override', nor does it clarify the expected format of 'content' or the role of 'workspace_id'. The description only indirectly references the 'platforms' parameter without adding meaningful detail 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 clearly states the specific action ('Rewrite a piece of content'), the target resource ('one or more target platforms'), and the distinguishing behavior ('applying platform-specific tone and length constraints'). This makes it easy to differentiate from siblings like generate_caption or repurpose_url, which have different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., generate_caption, repurpose_url) would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the purpose.

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