Rewrite text

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

Annotations only flag openWorld=true and idempotentHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that text is transmitted to neuroslop.net and third-party generation providers, that a call consumes paid quota, that local edits can return spent=0, and that replay depends on the provider's receipt retention. The warning that 'a missing receipt or unknown delivery is not permission to start another paid run' is exactly the kind of non-obvious side-effect guidance an agent needs.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the remainder is a dense run-on chain of caveats with no separation between cost, privacy, idempotency, and score-availability concerns. Phrases like 'Scores may be independently unavailable' are cryptic and cost the agent parse time without clear payoff.

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 paid, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with an output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: spend approval, external data transmission, and retry/receipt semantics. The only shortfall is the unexplained reference to 'scores' and the absence of any sibling comparison.

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 lang, mode, tier, text, and requestId are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces requestId reuse semantics ('only for the same operation') but adds nothing about the other four parameters beyond the schema text.

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 opening clause, 'Request editorial rewriting with an API key and user approval to spend quota,' names a specific verb (rewrite) and resource (text), so an agent knows this is a paid text-rewriting call. However, it never explains what 'humanize' means in relation to the siblings neuroslop_check and neuroslop_clean, nor how this rewrite differs from a cleanup pass.

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 gives concrete preconditions for calling (API key plus user approval to spend quota) and a retry rule for requestId, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of telling the agent when to pick this tool over neuroslop_clean or neuroslop_check, so selection is left implied.

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