restore_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. It only says 'locally', but does not disclose error handling, behavior when mapping keys are missing, whether the input text is modified or returned, or any output characteristics. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentence with no fluff, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being nearly useless, which balances the score down from a perfect conciseness score.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity (two required params, nested object), the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention the return value, how the mapping is applied, or any prerequisites. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It names 'restore' but never explains that 'text' contains placeholders and 'mapping' is a placeholder-to-value lookup. The agent would have to infer parameter meaning from the tool name alone.

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 phrase 'Restore known Securedact placeholders locally' clearly identifies a restoration action on placeholders, which is distinct from the sibling tools (analyze, redact, create safe copy). However, 'known' is ambiguous and the term 'Securedact placeholders' may not be self-explanatory.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is typically used after redaction or that it requires a mapping of placeholders to original text, even though the schema implies this.

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