redact_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the core behavior (removal and replacement with black rectangle) and notes that the reason is stored in a log. However, it omits details like irreversibility, permission requirements, or effect on document formatting.

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 concise, focusing on the core purpose and parameter details. It uses clear, front-loaded language. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be slightly improved (e.g., bullet points for args).

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, the description adequately covers parameter semantics and core behavior. It does not explain return values (unnecessary per guidelines) or edge cases, but the coverage is sufficient for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides brief but meaningful explanations for all four parameters: pattern (regex), para_ids (limit scope), exact_text (exact match), reason (logged). It could be improved by clarifying that pattern and exact_text are mutually exclusive.

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 clearly states the tool does 'True redaction: remove text and replace with black rectangle,' distinguishing it from siblings like delete_text (simple removal) and replace_text (replacement with text). It also specifies two input methods (exact_text or pattern), adding specificity.

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 implies when to use this tool (for redaction requiring a black rectangle) and provides two distinct matching modes. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for simple deletion) or mention of alternatives like scrub_pii.

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