forget_pii

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that deletion is deterministic rather than an LLM guess, that it returns what was erased, and that the basis parameter records the legal/operational reason under Art. 30. It even discloses a historical gap about erasures performed over MCP lacking a stated ground, which is meaningful behavioral context.

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 first sentence is dense and front-loaded with the core action and scope. The second sentence adds useful context about basis. The final sentence is somewhat obscure and may confuse agents, but overall the description is short and avoids redundancy.

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?

For a destructive PII tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably informative: it covers inputs, deterministic behavior, and return value. However, it omits behavior when no PII is found, the semantics of allow_ambiguous, whether erasure is reversible or audited, and how this tool relates to sibling erasure/audit tools, so the context is not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains types (default all), subject (optional scope), and basis (legal/operational reason), but it leaves request_id and allow_ambiguous undefined. allow_ambiguous in particular is a decision-relevant boolean without explanation, so the parameter semantics are only partially addressed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Erase') with a clear resource ('detected PII') and states the operational scope: types, subject, and deterministic deletion. It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like forget or forget_subject, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 intended use is implied: erase detected PII, optionally limited by types or subject. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forget_subject, forget, or erasure_residue, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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