Normalize People Preview

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it specifies the exact transformation categories covered, excludes title-casing of stylized names, and discloses cost and authentication requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action first, then adds the scope exclusion and the cost/auth caveat, all in about twelve words of useful content.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description leaves the 'rules' parameter unexplained and does not connect this preview tool to its natural sibling normalize_people_apply, so an agent may not know how to call it correctly in context.

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 schema only shows a single optional 'rules' array of strings with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what values 'rules' accepts, what happens if it is omitted, or how rules shape the preview, leaving the agent to guess at the parameter's meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Preview') and a clear resource ('whitespace/phone/handle normalization changes'), with an explicit scope exclusion ('no title-case of stylized names'). It reads clearly as a dry-run/preview operation, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with normalize_people_apply or other siblings.

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 verb 'Preview' implies this is a dry-run tool, and the mention of cost and API key requirement gives some operational context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of normalize_people_apply, nor does it say 'run this before applying changes' or exclude any alternative.

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