critical_detokenize

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

Beyond the `readOnlyHint` annotation, the description adds important behavioral details: failure on invalid tokens, token format requirements, and limits. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the agent understands both the safety profile and edge cases.

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 only three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: state the action, explain failure and alternative, and provide operational constraints. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral aspects comprehensively. It addresses failure modes, limits, and distinguishes from a sibling, making it self-contained for an agent.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the parameter with an example. The description adds value by specifying the token format and validation criteria (64+ chars, `token_XXXX...`), which is not in the schema, raising it above the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Detokenize critical tokens to recover plaintext values') and distinguishes this tool from the sibling `critical_partial_detokenize` by specifying that it fails on non-valid tokens, while the partial version handles mixed inputs.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool (all tokens are valid critical tokens) and when not (mixed inputs, recommending `critical_partial_detokenize`). It also provides constraints: maximum 1024 values and case-sensitivity, leaving no ambiguity.

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