Convert text case

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds one useful behavioral detail: the tool handles input already in any of these styles. However, it does not describe edge-case behavior like handling of non-alphanumeric characters or the exact slug format.

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 two sentences with the core action and supported styles front-loaded, and no filler. The long style list is necessary because it directly matches the required enum values.

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, read-only, idempotent converter with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage and input compatibility. The only noticeable gap is that 'slug' is not precisely defined, leaving a minor ambiguity about its exact normalization behavior.

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 100%: 'text' is described as the text to convert and 'style' is an enum listing all target conventions. The description largely restates what the schema already provides rather than adding deeper parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Rewrite text into a naming convention', and enumerates every supported style. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling text-analysis tools.

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 purpose and supported transformations make it clear when this tool should be used: whenever text needs to be converted into one of the listed naming conventions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools serve unrelated functions, so the usage context is unambiguous.

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