deidentify

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true and destructive=false; the description adds real substance beyond them by clarifying that originals are untouched (copies are written), that UIDs are remapped consistently across the set, and that pixel data is left unchanged. It does not say how cache collisions or re-runs behave, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, followed by the transformation semantics and one explicit non-goal. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the transformation model and the pixel-data caveat an agent needs to reason about results. The remaining gap — where in the cache output lands and how to chain into retrieve/search — is arguably covered by the return schema.

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 100%, so paths, date_mode, keep_private and keep_descriptions are already documented. The description adds only the framing that this is a 'basic confidentiality profile subset', which implicitly bounds what the keep_* flags can preserve but gives no per-parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write de-identified copies of local DICOM files') plus the destination ('to the cache'), which cleanly separates it from store/move/transfer/retrieve siblings. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied — you de-identify when you need anonymised copies — but the description never says when to prefer this over store or transfer, nor any preconditions such as the allowed-paths constraint. No explicit when-not guidance is offered.

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