Declare Re-identification Risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether the declaration is persisted, who sees it, or what happens on re-declaration. There is mild tension between the assertive verb 'Declare' and readOnlyHint=true, but the verb is weak enough not to be a hard contradiction.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity is a completeness problem rather than a structure one.

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?

For a 4-parameter declaration tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, one sentence is far from sufficient. Missing are usage context, parameter meanings, enum semantics, and behavioral consequences of the declaration.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the load — and it explains none of them. It gives no meaning for 'assessedBy', 'assessmentMethod', or 'mitigationsApplied', and never clarifies the 'risk' enum values or how 'mitigated'/'unknown' differ from the others.

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 gives a clear verb ('Declare') and a specific resource ('re-identification risk'), scoped to 'transformed or synthetic data'. It is understandable without opening the schema, though it does no explicit differentiation from the many sibling governance 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?

There is no guidance on when to declare risk versus using other governance tools (e.g. attest_to_floor, create_disclosure), no prerequisites, and no indication of which workflow stage triggers this call. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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