Humanize text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value ('Returns the rewritten text') and the cost implication ('Costs words/credits on the connected Rephrasy plan'). It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but the key behavioral facts are covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by return info and cost. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence provides necessary information.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return value, and cost. It includes the prerequisite that a Rephrasy plan is connected. It does not explain edge-case behaviors like error handling or input limits, but given the simplicity of the tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all parameters with descriptions (text, model, style, language). The tool description does not add any extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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's action ('Rewrite AI-generated text'), the method ('with Rephrasy'), and the outcome ('reads in a natural, human style — varying sentence rhythm, structure and word choice while preserving meaning'). It is distinguished from the sibling 'detect' by focusing on rewriting rather than detection.

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: it is for AI-generated text that needs to be humanized. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'detect' tool or provide when-not-to-use guidance. There is clear context but no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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