expand_content

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that existing content is expanded, leaving unclear whether this is a pure transformation, how much expansion occurs, what side effects exist, or what the output contains.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is concise to the point of under-specification, so it loses a point for missing substance.

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 tool has no annotations and zero schema description coverage. The output schema exists, but the description still does not explain the tool's behavior, the tone parameter, or when this tool should be chosen over similar content-generation siblings.

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 0%, and the description does not mention tone, content, or project_id explicitly. 'Existing content' and 'CreatorOS project' loosely imply the content and project_id parameters, but the required tone parameter is completely unexplained.

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 identifies a clear action ('expand') and a resource ('existing content' for a CreatorOS project). It loosely differentiates from siblings like rewrite_content and summarize_content, but it does not specify what expansion means or what the resulting content looks like.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use expand_content instead of sibling tools such as rewrite_content, summarize_content, or humanize_content. The description gives no context, conditions, or exclusions, so an agent must infer the appropriate scenario.

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