vault_partial_detokenize

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true). It explains that non-token values are returned as-is, details rate limits (492 requests/month, 50 requests/second), and maximum call size (4096 values). No contradiction with annotations.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value: main action, comparison to sibling, and operational limits. No superfluous text.

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 tool's complexity (single parameter with nested object, rate limits, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains behavior, use case, limits, and links the sibling tool for comparison.

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 has 100% coverage, with a detailed description for the 'values' parameter including an example. The tool description does not add significant new information about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: detokenize vault tokens while passing non-token values unchanged. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool vault_detokenize, which fails on non-token values.

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 compares this tool to vault_detokenize, providing a clear when-to-use scenario: when non-token values may be present. It also includes rate limits and maximum values per call, giving operational constraints.

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