Rewrite About section

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool generates drafts locally without sending data to LinkedIn, which is critical safety information. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the local-only guarantee suffices.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with essential info: risk/draft/local first, then purpose and styles. No fluff; every word adds value.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and styles. It lacks explanation of 'extraContext' and return values, but the safety info and variant list make it fairly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists the enum values for 'styles' (e.g., 'concise', 'technical'), adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, the 'extraContext' parameter is not described, leaving a gap.

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 verb 'Generates' with the resource 'draft text' for the About section, clearly specifying the output. It lists five distinct styles, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'rewrite_experience' and 'generate_headline_variants'.

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 explicitly states '[risk: draft-only]' and 'Nothing is sent to LinkedIn,' implying safe experimentation. This guides when to use: for local drafts without risk. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'rewrite_experience'.

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