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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavior — the result is verified and nothing is returned if any target text survives, and the original file is preserved. It stops short of stating permissions or what a failure response looks like, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the key differentiator ('for real, not just cover it'), then the two targeting modes, then the safety/verification guarantee. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be covered, and the verification behavior is a strong addition. But for a destructive 8-parameter tool with four optional, mutually substitutable file sources and unexplained flags, the description leaves too much selection logic to inference.

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 description maps its two modes onto the 'text' array and the 'find' string, adding meaning the schema leaves thin (the array has no description). However, with 63% coverage and 8 parameters, it says nothing about match_case, remove_metadata, or how file / file_id / file_url / library_file_id are chosen between.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove text for real') plus the two ways to specify targets, which no sibling (smart_edit, stamp_pdf, protect_pdf) does. An agent can distinguish true redaction from covering content without opening the schema.

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 explains the two invocation modes (exact text vs. AI-described target), which is real usage guidance, but never says when to prefer this over siblings like smart_edit or protect_pdf, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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