Suggest Improvements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating it's read-only. Description adds that it returns suggestion text and optionally grounds in document content. However, it doesn't mention async behavior or response format, which are relevant but not contradicted.

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, each earning its place: first explains what it does and returns, second gives usage guidance with alternatives. No unnecessary 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 simplicity of the tool and good annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and grounding. However, it lacks information about async parameter behavior and output format, which would be helpful since there is no output schema.

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 75%, so most parameters have descriptions. The description reiterates that useContext and documentId relate to grounding, adding no new info. The async parameter is not mentioned in the description. Overall, minimal additional value beyond 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?

Description clearly states it generates AI writing suggestions for revision, next steps, or alternatives. It distinguishes from sibling tools analyze_document (structured metrics) and check_consistency (contradictions).

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 tells when to use: for generative 'how could this be better' help. Also specifies when not to use: use analyze_document for metrics, check_consistency for contradictions. Provides clear alternatives.

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