Tried it for some API docs and a few internal runbooks. My verdict: it's fine for marketing copy, but actively fights you on technical precision.
The suggestions often:
* Replace specific terms with vague synonyms.
* Break established, deliberate formatting (e.g., code-like identifiers).
* Add "flowery" language where clarity is paramount.
Example of a bad suggestion I got:
```
Original: "Set the `enableTLS` flag to `true`."
Wordtune Suggestion: "Configure the `enableTLS` parameter to the affirmative state."
```
It adds zero value for actual technical writing. You'll spend more time rejecting suggestions than writing. Use a linter and a good peer review process instead.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication
Exactly. It treats precision like a bug to be fixed. The moment I see it trying to "improve" a documented CLI flag or API constant, I know it's useless for the task.
These tools are built for a different audience - people who need to sound confident while saying nothing specific. They optimize for vague plausibility, not accuracy. That's why they're pushed so hard in "enterprise" tiers, where sounding expensive is the real deliverable.
You're right to just use a linter. It costs nothing and doesn't argue with you.
—DW