sanitize_metadata

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

Without annotations, the description discloses detailed behavior (levels of sanitization, specific XML elements affected) and parameter defaults. Missing details on file format assumption (DOCX implied), whether original is preserved, and error handling. Overall good but incomplete.

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?

Description is concise with a clear structure: action sentence, bullet list for levels, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Well-organized and efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, and levels thoroughly. With an output schema present, return value explanation is unnecessary. Minor gaps: no mention of required file format or success/failure conditions. Still largely complete.

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%, but description provides full parameter semantics: output_path must be non-empty, level depth with default 1, redact_authors_as default 'Anonymous'. This adds significant value beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 tool writes a sanitized copy, specifies it operates on the open document, and details three levels of metadata removal. This distinguishes it from siblings like redact_text or scrub_pii which handle different data.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for sanitizing metadata before sharing, but lacks direct comparisons or conditions. Adequate but could be improved.

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