aaddyy_paraphraser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the ~1 credit cost and that a track-changes diff is returned. It does not say whether input text is preserved, whether the operation is safe/idempotent, or anything about limits or auth, so it is partial rather than complete.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does, then modes, then scope, then cost — no filler sentences. Slightly dense in the mode enumeration, but every element earns its place.

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 3-param tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers modes, language scope, diff output, and cost, but omits the language list, exact mode tokens, and any output shape beyond the diff. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would hit at call time.

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% and the schema even leaves `description` empty for all three params, so the description is the only source. It names the 8 mode values and the 18-language support but never gives the exact mode strings, the language values, or any meaning for `text`; the enum-style list is useful but not machine-precise.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (rewrite any text) and enumerates the 8 modes, which cleanly separates it from nearby siblings like aaddyy_synonym_finder, aaddyy_humanizer, and aaddyy_grammar_checker. An agent can tell what it does and roughly where it sits without opening the schema.

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 mode list implies use cases (Formal, Academic, Shorten) but the description never says when to pick this tool over the sibling rewriters or grammars, nor any prerequisites. It reads as a capability blurb, not routing guidance.

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