rewrite_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that code preserves the type(scope): prefix and trailers for commits, defines the guard_passed=false fallback (text reverts to the neutral draft, warnings explains why), and mandates verbatim use of the returned text. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the when-to-use, then parameter details and the verbatim/fallback rules. Dense but nearly every clause adds operative information; the closing safety instruction is policy-adjacent rather than tool behavior, a minor surplus.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return contract (text, guard_passed, warnings) and the exact obligation to reuse text verbatim. For a two-parameter transformation tool this leaves nothing an agent needs in order to call and consume it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the task param has no enum in the schema, yet the description compensates fully: text is a complete neutral Vietnamese draft addressing people as anh/em (not tôi/bạn) with code/paths/identifiers in backticks, and task is enumerated as message | commit | comment with commit-specific guidance to pass the whole message.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with a concrete transformation target: rewrite a neutral Vietnamese draft into the owner's voice (casual, abbreviations, Gen Z). The input and output artifacts are both named, so an agent knows exactly what goes in and what comes out.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it (before writing a commit message, PR/issue comment, or chat message on the owner's behalf) and adds a hard constraint: never send a message to another person without the owner seeing it first. There is only one sibling (health), so no alternative routing is needed.

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