Deslop writing

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by describing the bounded response, the safest source-preserving edit, exact before/after scores, and the review warning if a target is missed. It also warns that results may vary across hosts, adding context beyond the schema.

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 and front-loads the core purpose. The final sentence about the hosted Zero Slop agent harness is somewhat tangential but still relevant for setting expectations. Overall it's compact and readable, with only minor excess.

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 tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what it returns, what happens on failure, and usage restrictions. It doesn't detail edge cases or auth requirements, but those are not critical given the tool's read‑only nature (destructiveHint false) and the schema constraints. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (text, genre, audience). The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions 'pasted draft' which aligns with the text parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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's function: rewriting a pasted draft with one editorial response, local scoring, and source checks. It specifies the resource (draft) and the action (rewrite), and distinguishes it from any generic text tool by mentioning the bounded response and scoring. No siblings exist, so no differentiation needed.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use it to improve writing quality, never to hide authorship or evade a disclosure requirement.' This gives an explicit when-to-use and a restriction. There are no sibling tools to contrast with, but the instruction is enough to guide appropriate use.

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