redact_file

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so write behavior is already known. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it writes to a NEW file and returns only per-type counts so raw PII never enters context. It omits overwrite semantics and the save_mapping side effect, but those gaps are covered in the schema.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler; the core action and the privacy-preserving return behavior are both front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what is returned (counts per type) and that raw contents are withheld. The main omission is the relationship to sibling tools and the save_mapping/restore_file workflow, which the schema only partially hints at.

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 coverage is 80%, with descriptions for types, input_path, output_path, and save_mapping, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail (only 'counts per type' loosely gestures at the types param), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: redact a text file into a new file, plus the key constraint that contents are not shown. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling redact_text, leaving the agent to infer the file vs. string boundary.

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 clause 'so the personal data never enters the conversation' implies when this tool is preferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of redact_text/restore_file as alternatives. Usage is only indirectly implied.

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