redact_text

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 only says 'lower-level compatibility tool,' which hints at its nature but does not state what redaction behavior occurs, how policy or response_mode affect results, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency 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 with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concisely useful. It omits the tool's core action and parameter semantics, so brevity comes at the cost of essential information.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this description is far from complete. The output schema may cover return values, but the description fails to explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, or when to use it beyond preferring a sibling.

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%, and the description mentions no parameters. The schema provides names and defaults but no semantics for policy or response_mode, and the description does nothing to compensate for that lack of meaning.

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 identifies the tool as a 'lower-level compatibility tool' but never explicitly states that it redacts text; the core action is implied only by the tool name. It does distinguish itself from prepare_for_external_ai by saying 'prefer' that sibling, but the actual function remains vague.

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 explicitly says 'prefer prepare_for_external_ai,' which provides a clear alternative and a when-not-to-use signal. However, it does not explain when the compatibility path should actually be used or contrast with the other siblings like analyze_text or restore_text.

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