Write & communicate

Audit email tone for harshness, ambiguity, and passive aggression

Identify wording risks in context and revise tone without weakening facts or boundaries

5 min setupTested with:ChatGPTReviewed: 2026-08-28

Add your context

Your text stays in this browser. AILesson Prompts does not send it to a model or server.

Draft emailRelationship and historyRequired intent and boundaries

Your prompt

Unfilled fields remain visible as placeholders, so you can still copy and edit the prompt

Audit the draft email for harsh, ambiguous, or passive-aggressive language.

Draft:
[draft]

Relationship, power dynamics, history, and sensitivities:
[context]

Required action, firmness, facts, and boundaries:
[intent]

Evaluate wording in context rather than assuming any direct sentence is rude. Identify exact phrases that may imply blame, sarcasm, threat, false consensus, hidden accusation, vague urgency, or unclear ownership. For each, explain the likely reading, severity, and a meaning-preserving alternative. Also flag ambiguity unrelated to tone. Then provide a revised email that keeps every required fact, deadline, refusal, escalation, and request. Do not erase legitimate accountability, add excessive apology, diagnose the sender, or claim how the recipient will feel.

Private by defaultPrompt assembly happens locally in your browser. Avoid placing confidential information into any AI service unless your organization allows it.

From input to outcome

A worked example

See how concrete context turns this recipe into a usable result

Actual input

Draft email: As I already explained twice, the figures were due yesterday. I’m sure you understand how this makes the whole team look. Please send the correct file ASAP, or I’ll have no choice but to take this further. Thanks in advance for finally sorting it out.
Relationship and history: A project lead writing to a peer team lead. Two prior reminders were sent, but neither confirmed a deadline. The received file has March rather than April figures. Escalation to both managers is allowed if the corrected file is not received by 15:00 today.
Required intent and boundaries: State that the file contains March data, request April data by 15:00 today, and say both managers will be included after that time. Keep the message firm and brief.

Example output

Tone risks: “already explained twice” assigns blame without helping identify the error; medium risk. “Makes the whole team look” uses shame and is unrelated to the requested correction; high risk. “No choice but to take this further” is a vague threat; replace it with the authorized escalation and exact trigger. “Finally sorting it out” is sarcastic; high risk. Clarity issue: “correct file” does not say that April figures are required, and “ASAP” conflicts with the available exact deadline. The claim that figures were due yesterday is unsupported by the history and should be removed.

Revised email: Subject: April figures needed by 15:00 today

Hi—The file received contains March figures. Please send the version containing April figures by 15:00 today. If it is not available by then, I will include both of our managers so we can agree the next step. Please let me know before 15:00 if there is a blocker or if I have referenced the wrong file.

Thanks, [Name]

Why this works

1
Phrase-level review distinguishes real tone risk from necessary directness.
2
Explicit invariants keep a friendlier revision from weakening accountability or scope.