Enhance Content

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces these by stating 'This does NOT modify the document' and 'Calls an external AI model.' It adds value by explaining the manual save workflow, but does not detail latency or failure modes. No contradiction 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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose and goals, non-modifying nature and next step, alternatives, and external call/requirement. No redundant words; front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: input parameters, behavior (non-modifying, external call), prerequisites (open project), and workflow. However, it does not specify the response format or input size limits, which would be helpful for a text generation tool.

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 has 67% description coverage; enhancementType is well-documented with enum meanings, and options is described generically. The description adds context by listing all goals, but documentId lacks explanation in both schema and description. Adequate but not comprehensive for all parameters.

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 produces an AI-improved version of a document's text for a specific goal, listing all enhancement types. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming analyze_document (critique) and generate_content (new text), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use alternatives: 'Use analyze_document for a critique instead of a rewrite, or generate_content to create new text from a prompt.' Also clarifies that this tool does not modify the document and that the user should call write_document to save, providing clear usage context.

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