key_protect_unwrap_key

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Unwrap (decrypt) data', which merely restates the function. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, has side effects, or what happens on AAD mismatch. This lack of non-obvious behavioral disclosure is a gap.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward tool.

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 has only 3 parameters all fully described in the schema, and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately states the core purpose. It could mention the return value (plaintext) or error conditions, but these are not strictly necessary for a simple operation. The description is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like key_id, ciphertext, and aad. It does not explain parameter relationships or provide usage examples, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema.

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 operation: 'Unwrap (decrypt)' with a specific resource 'data using a root key'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like key_protect_wrap_key, which performs the inverse operation. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage (unwrap data) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like key_protect_wrap_key. It provides no context such as 'use this for data wrapped with wrap_key' or any exclusions. The usage is somewhat inferred from the name and description.

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