redact_text

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that redaction is permanent (replace with black rectangle) and that reason is stored in log. Does not mention permission requirements or side effects on tracked changes, but is mostly transparent.

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?

Concise, front-loaded purpose, and an Args section. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet list), but no redundant information. Efficiently uses space.

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 optional params and output schema, description covers all parameters and redaction behavior. Lacks guidance on mutual exclusivity of pattern vs exact_text, but overall sufficient for agent to use 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?

Schema has 0% coverage, so description must compensate. It adds meaning to all four parameters: pattern (regex), exact_text (exact match), para_ids (scope limitation), reason (logging). This is valuable and goes beyond 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?

Description clearly states the action ('remove text and replace with black rectangle'), the specific mechanism ('Use exact_text or pattern'), and distinguishes from siblings like delete_text or replace_text. The verb 'redact' is 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?

Mentions using exact_text or pattern and optional para_ids to limit scope, but does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over alternatives like delete_text or replace_text. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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