text_wrap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'hard-wrap' usefully signals that real line breaks are inserted (as opposed to visual/soft wrapping), but the description does not state the return form, whether wrapping occurs on word boundaries, or what happens to whitespace, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 pure utility with a fully documented two-parameter schema and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. However, it omits edge behavior (word-boundary handling, handling of text already shorter than width) that an agent might need to predict output.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'text' and 'width' (including the 10-200 range and default 80) are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the width concept as 'specified column width' but adds no format, boundary, or default information beyond the structured data.

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 verb ('hard-wrap') and resource ('text') along with its scope ('specified column width'). 'Hard-wrap' is a precise term distinguishing it from soft wrapping, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as text_truncate, text_transform, or sort_lines.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative sibling tool. The agent must infer applicability purely from the tool name and one-line purpose.

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