Rewrite outgoing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it reveals a two-stage process (deterministic baseline + LLM refinement) and explicitly states the preservation contract for technical terms. No contradictions with annotations.

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 long with no redundant words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and key constraints; the second adds implementation detail. Every sentence earns its place without waste.

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 description covers the high-level behavior and process but lacks details on parameter semantics (e.g., what 'channel' is) and does not explain the register options. Since an output schema exists, return value details are likely covered, but the description still leaves some context incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'preserve_terms' parameter by mentioning 'preserving caller-named technical terms' and implies the 'target_register' enum values. Other parameters (text, channel, preserve_intent) are not explained, leaving significant gaps.

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 uses specific verbs ('rewrite') and resources ('outgoing message', 'target register', 'technical terms'), clearly defining the tool's core function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'translate_incoming' by focusing on register adaptation rather than language translation.

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 is provided. The description does not mention when to choose this over sibling tools like 'translate_incoming' or 'brief_meeting', nor does it state any conditions or exclusions.

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