Rewrite outgoing

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe, side-effect-free operation. The description adds behavioral detail: a deterministic baseline applies transforms, then an LLM refinement produces a stronger rewrite while preserving terms. This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The first sentence clearly states the main function; the second adds nuance about the rewriting process. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured.

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 6 parameters, an output schema, and annotations. The description covers the core function but lacks parameter details and usage context. For a tool with moderate complexity, it is incomplete; more information on parameter roles would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'preserving caller-named technical terms,' which relates to preserve_terms, but does not explain text, target_register, channel, preserve_intent, or reader_context. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema.

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 rewrites an outgoing message toward a target register while preserving caller-named technical terms. The verb 'rewrite' and resource 'outgoing message' are specific, and it distinguishes between deterministic baseline and LLM refinement, which sets it apart from sibling tools like translate_incoming.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for register rewriting but does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools. Usage is implied but not clearly stated.

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