mask_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool creates a copy (non-destructive), preserves formatting for certain types, and has a PDF redaction option. However, it does not describe what the 'safe of matches' is, whether it modifies the original, or any other behavioral aspects like idempotency or authorization requirements. Some transparency but incomplete.

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 short at two sentences, with the main action in the first sentence. It avoids clutter but omits important details like the purpose of the 'safe of matches'. It is reasonably concise, though the second sentence could be more integrated.

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 has 11 parameters covering many masking options and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains basic file copying and format handling but fails to describe the extensive configuration options (allowlist, URL/date masking, name detection) or the structure of the 'safe of matches' output. The agent would need to rely heavily on parameter descriptions, which are incomplete (only 73% coverage).

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 73%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions PDF redaction (pdf_redact) but doesn't elaborate on other parameters like allowlist, out, or vault_path. Thus the description does not enhance parameter semantics.

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 primary action: creating an anonymized copy of a file and a safety mapping. It specifies different behaviors for DOCX/XLSX vs PDF, adding context about format support. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like mask_text or unmask_document, though the document focus is implied.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings such as mask_text for text strings or scan_document for scanning. It lacks any conditions, prerequisites, or recommended use cases, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the tool name.

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