Humanize a document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is saved next to the source, returns its path, preserves content elements, and costs credits. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, permissions, or whether the original file is modified, which would strengthen transparency.

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?

Composed of four concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, optional report, output handling, and cost warning. The main purpose is front-loaded, and no content is wasted.

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 purpose, optional input, output behavior, and cost implications. It does not explain the return format beyond the path, but the absence of an output schema and moderate complexity make this acceptable. Overall, it is complete for a humanization tool.

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 input schema covers all 6 parameters with detailed descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given high schema coverage.

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 rewrites .docx or .pptx files to read as human-written and lower AI detector scores, while preserving meaning, citations, tables, and layout. This specific verb and resource clearly distinguish it from siblings like condense_document or translate_document.

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?

It gives clear context on usage, including the optional use of a Turnitin/iThenticate report to rewrite only flagged passages. It also instructs the agent to inform the user about credit costs and get agreement. No explicit exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, but the context is sufficient.

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