Convert citation format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors: it modifies only citations (leaves body text alone), saves the result next to the source (non-destructive), returns the path, and costs credits at a specific rate. However, it does not disclose the asynchronous job-id behavior implied by the wait_seconds schema parameter, which is a minor transparency gap.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the main action, the output behavior, and the cost/consent requirement. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and has no redundant phrasing.

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 description covers the core action, output location, return path, and cost, but it omits important context about the asynchronous nature of the tool (job id vs. path) and potential error conditions, which are not captured in an output schema. Given the existence of a parameter like wait_seconds and a sibling check_job, the description could be clearer about the execution model to avoid agent misinterpretation.

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 already documents all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, including allowed styles and the default behavior for output_path. The description adds no new parameter-specific details; it only restates the style rewrite behavior and output location, which are already in the schema. Therefore, the description provides marginal added value 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 uses the specific verb 'Rewrite' to target '.docx's in-text citations and reference list' with an outcome 'into one target style'. It explicitly says 'leaving the body text alone', which scopes the operation precisely. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like humanize_document or translate_document, which handle broader text transformations.

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 by stating the exact function: rewriting citations into a target style. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on citations and reference lists provides clear context for when to select this tool over siblings. It also includes an operational guideline about securing user agreement due to credit costs.

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