Draft copy for a page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses that the tool rewrites text, preserves layout, returns draft rows with id/widget/old/new, stores those rows, and does not mutate the live site until a separate apply step. It also discloses the cost: 1 credit per page.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, the second covers return values and side effects, and the third provides the 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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential return format, the storage side effect, the condition preventing live-site changes, and the follow-up apply step. Minor gaps remain: it does not describe optional language behavior or what happens if a draft is generated again for the same page, but the overall tool contract is clear.

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 schema only documents post_id; the description reinforces that post_id 0 means site identity and connects the brief parameter to the business in the brief, adding some context. However, the language parameter is not explained anywhere, and the brief parameter's expected content and format go only as far as a 10-character minimum in the schema. With schema coverage at 33%, this is partial but not complete compensation.

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 and resource: 'Rewrite every text on one page' for the business in the brief, while also noting the special post_id 0 case. It clearly differentiates this drafting step from applying later, especially by mentioning sweipe_brief_apply, so an agent can tell it apart from its 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 explains that this tool only creates and stores drafts and that 'nothing changes on the site until sweipe_brief_apply', which gives a clear workflow context and names the follow-up sibling. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it compared with sweipe_brief_pick or sweipe_brief_undo, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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