Speak as Vader

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful transformation traits: formal register, no contractions, opening/closing framing, and verbatim usage. This gives the agent a clear model of what will happen to the input, which is strong for a simple text-restyling 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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and style constraints are front-loaded, and the usage instruction ('use the result verbatim') earns its place. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 low-complexity tool with only two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the transformation style and the expected usage pattern. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds some context by calling the input the 'plain version' of what to say, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on the intensity parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Restyle a message') and the specific resource/voice ('Darth Vader's voice'), with concrete style details. It does not explicitly contrast with the siblings vader_quote or sense_disturbance, but the restyle intent is distinct enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 when to use the tool: when the user has a plain message that should be turned into Vader-style speech. It also tells the agent to pass the plain version and use the result verbatim. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from sibling tools like vader_quote.

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