get_manuscript_edit_prompt

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

The description discloses what the tool checks (scientific accuracy, style, etc.) and its output format (tracked-changes with comments). The data safety warning adds transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a prompt-generating tool (not directly performing edits), and no annotations are present to fill gaps.

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 brief (four sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, but has output schema) and the context of sibling prompt tools, the description covers the core functionality and safety. It is adequate but could mention the output schema nature or provide an example for completeness.

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 single parameter 'text_excerpt' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds minimal value by advising 'Only paste published or internally approved text' but does not specify expected format, length, or other constraints. The tool's purpose implies the parameter should be manuscript text, but the description does not make this explicit.

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 tool is for medical manuscript editing and lists specific checks (scientific accuracy, AMA style, etc.) and output format (tracked-changes). However, there is a slight ambiguity: the tool name suggests it returns a prompt, while the description implies it performs the edit itself, which could confuse an agent.

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 includes a data safety guideline ('Only paste published or internally approved text'), which is helpful but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling prompt tools (e.g., get_manuscript_outline_prompt) or provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied but not fully clarified.

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