sanitize_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists what is removed at each level and notes that a copy is written. However, it does not mention potential errors, file overwrite behavior, or that the original document remains unchanged. The description does not contradict annotations (none provided).

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, bullet-like list of levels, and labeled args. 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 tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no annotations, output schema exists but not provided), the description provides a good overview of purpose and parameters. It could be more complete by noting prerequisites (document must be open) or error conditions, but it is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clearly explains output_path (non-empty), level (depth, default 1), and redact_authors_as (replacement for level2+). A minor discrepancy: description says default 'Anonymous' but schema default is ''; this could confuse but overall adds strong semantics.

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 the tool writes a sanitized copy of the open document to a specified path, with detailed levels that distinguish it from sibling tools. The verb 'Write' and resource 'sanitized copy' are specific, and the levels (1-3) provide clear scope.

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?

The description implies when to use by detailing levels of sanitization, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'redact_text' or 'scrub_pii'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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