Stage Chat Export

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

Annotations already indicate write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context about reading local files, redaction, classification, and the staging-only write scope, which enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant or superfluous information. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function and scope.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and complexity around redaction/classification, the description covers the main workflow and exclusions. It does not elaborate on classification details or artifact specifics, but with good annotations, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well documented in the input schema. The description gives a general overview but does not add specific parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. It meets the baseline but does not go further.

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 reads local chat export files, redacts sensitive values, classifies them, and writes staging artifacts. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not write to Homebase or Notion, making the purpose 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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: for staging chat data without writing to Homebase or Notion. It implies when not to use (when final writes are needed) and explicitly mentions the exclusion. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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