rewrite_for_platforms

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

The description discloses a valuable behavioral detail—cost per platform—which is beyond what the schema provides. It does not, however, mention whether the operation has side effects, the return structure, or any permission requirements. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden but only partially meets it.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the core function and one for the cost note. There is no fluff, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and its cost but omits the return format and any error/side-effect behavior. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, this creates ambiguity for the agent. However, the platform enum in the schema and the clear purpose partially compensate for the missing output details.

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?

The description gives functional meaning to the two required parameters: 'content' (the piece to rewrite) and 'platforms' (the targets with platform-specific tone/length). This compensates for the low schema coverage (25%). The 'tone' parameter is already described in the schema, and 'workspace_id' is a standard context parameter. The phrase 'platform-specific constraints' enriches the platforms enum.

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 action ('Rewrite a piece of content'), the target ('for one or more target platforms'), and the specific behavior ('applying platform-specific tone and length constraints'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like generate_caption or edit_post by focusing on multi-platform rewriting.

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 implies the usage context (adapting content for multiple platforms) and adds a cost consideration ('Costs 1 AI credit per platform') that helps decision-making. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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