Repurpose Post

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a concrete operational detail not in the annotations: 'Consumes 2 orchyn credits.' This is useful context beyond what the structured metadata provides. There is no contradiction between the description and the annotations.

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 compact sentences with no wasted content. It front-lines the core action, then gives the usage condition and cost. Every sentence 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?

Given the small parameter set, high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, target formats, cost, and the exact use case. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call this tool 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents `url` and `targets`. The description adds meaning by enumerating concrete target surfaces (X thread, LinkedIn, carousel, YouTube, newsletter), helping the agent know valid `targets` values even though no formal enum is provided.

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 states a specific verb ('rewrite'), a clear resource ('one post'), and the exact outputs ('X thread, LinkedIn post, carousel slides, YouTube title/description, newsletter'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinct from analysis and discovery siblings.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use when a post already worked and you want it on other surfaces.' It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it misses the full exclusion guidance but still provides clear context.

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