mask_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a vault_id for reverse substitution, but does not explain whether the operation is destructive, reversible beyond substitution, or has any side effects like logging or API rate limits.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first explains what the tool does, the second gives critical timing advice. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 parameter richness (7 params, 86% schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose and usage timing. It could improve by mentioning return value structure or error states, but it is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's descriptions (e.g., the allowlist, tag_style formats are already documented). The only added value is the overall workflow context, not parameter-specific details.

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 verb 'replace' and resource 'personal data in text', specifies the output format of stable tags like #PERSON_1#, and distinguishes itself from siblings like unmask_text and mask_document by focusing on text-level masking.

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 explicitly says 'Call this BEFORE sending someone else's text anywhere', providing clear timing guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or describe alternative tools like verify_text or mask_document for comparison.

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