pylon_redact_message

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning whether redaction is irreversible, affects related data, or requires special permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized given the simplicity of the tool, though it could be more expansive on behavior without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what redaction does, its permanence, and any side effects. It only states the action, leaving the agent without critical context for a mutation tool. This is incomplete.

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 covers both parameters (issue_id and message_id) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 'Redact a specific message in an issue' uses a specific verb ('redact') and identifies the resource ('message in an issue'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_issue_messages or update_issue, as none of them explicitly mention redaction.

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 implies usage when a message needs to be redacted, but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. Given the number of sibling tools, more context would be helpful, but the purpose itself offers a clear implied use case.

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