Enhance Content

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that it calls an external AI model and requires an open project, which are useful behavioral traits beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail potential latency or error handling.

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 concise sentences, each adding unique value: core purpose, non-modification and workflow, sibling differentiation, and external AI call + prerequisite. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, non-destructive nature, and prerequisites. It lacks details about the output format or potential asynchronous behavior, but overall is well-rounded.

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 100% so baseline is 3. The description essentially restates the enumeration meanings from the schema without adding new semantics; the 'options' parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema description.

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 it produces an AI-improved version of a document's text for specific goals, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_document and generate_content.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance, mentioning alternatives for critiques or new text, and specifies the workflow: review result and use write_document to save. Also states requirement of an open project.

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