Restore original values into placeholder text

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

The description richly discloses behaviors beyond annotations: it writes to clipboard or file, never appears in chat, returns replacement counts only, and is free (never consumes an evaluation document). This adds significant context that annotations alone (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) do not convey, and it does not contradict any annotations.

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 four concise sentences, each adding critical information: when to use, output destination, return type, and cost. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and contains no filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (4 params, output schema, sibling tools), the description covers the purpose, usage scenario, output behavior, destination, and cost. It even includes a user instruction ('always tell the user where it went'). The output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, but it still does. This is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds only a few contextual hints (e.g., examples of placeholders) but does not explain parameters in greater depth or add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('restore original values into placeholder text') with a clear target (an AI answer containing Stript placeholders like [PERSON_1] or [EMAIL_2]). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on inline text and noting that restored text never appears in chat, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 opens with 'Use this when...' and gives a concrete scenario, establishing when to use it. It also provides guidance on always telling the user where the output went. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like stript_restore_file or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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