defang_text

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: it discloses bidirectional behavior ('and back'), the specific transformations applied, and the purpose context. It does not specify how unrecognized or non-indicator text is treated, but for a deterministic local transformation tool this is a minor 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first defines the action with illustrative examples, the second gives the usage context. Every clause earns its place, and the core action is front-loaded before the usage note.

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 simple 2-parameter, no-output-schema transformation tool, the description covers what it does, how (via examples), and when to use it. The return value (transformed text) is implied but not stated, and edge-case handling is unspecified — acceptable gaps given the tool's simplicity, though a sentence on output would push this to a 5.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the text parameter is undocumented in the schema, and the description only partially compensates by implying text holds the indicators to transform. The mode parameter's meaning ('defang' default or 'refang') already lives in the schema, so the description adds transformation semantics but does not fully document both parameters.

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 names a specific action ('Defang or refang') on a specific resource ('indicators in text'), then grounds it with concrete transformation examples (http→hxxp[://], dots→[.], @→[at]). This clearly distinguishes it from its analysis-oriented siblings (identify_hash, cvss_score, lookup_kev), which all inspect rather than transform text.

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?

'Use before pasting live URLs into anything that auto-links' provides a concrete, contextual trigger for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but no sibling performs text transformation, so the usage niche is already unambiguous.

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