Build a privacy-aware chat analysis brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds the meaningful trait that no transcript is uploaded, reinforcing the privacy-preserving behavior. It still omits that a consent confirmation is required and whether any validation gates the call.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the artifact, with the key constraint ('without uploading a transcript') placed at the end. No filler sentences, though the clause list is long enough to verge on run-on.

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 an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin. It never clarifies the required consentConfirmed flag or the risk-signaling of containsHighRiskData, which are central to the 'privacy-aware' framing in the title.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly names focusedQuestion, participantAliases, and knownGaps and hints at platform via 'WhatsApp or iMessage', but leaves relationshipContext, dateRange, consentConfirmed, and containsHighRiskData unexplained beyond vague references to 'privacy blockers'.

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 ('Structure') and resource ('chat analysis brief') and enumerates the constituent parts (question, aliases, gaps, privacy blockers, evidence plan), so the agent knows exactly what gets produced. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like audit_chat_claim or score_interaction_signals, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without uploading a transcript' implies the intended usage context (privacy-preserving pre-analysis structuring) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The agent must infer that this precedes actual transcript analysis rather than replacing it.

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