unmask_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('restore originals') without revealing side effects, whether the operation is destructive, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 sentence, but it is not concise because it is under-specified and in a non-English language, failing to efficiently convey necessary information. It does not earn its place as a useful guide.

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 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, parameter behavior, or any operational context. The agent cannot determine how to 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any parameter. The parameter names (out, mode, path, vault_path) are not explained, and the enum mode (sequential/canonical) is left undefined. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states the tool restores originals in a previously masked file by vault, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it is in Russian, which may reduce clarity for non-Russian-speaking agents. It distinguishes from siblings like mask_document and unmask_text, but the phrase 'by vault' is ambiguous and does not fully align with the parameter name 'vault_path'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as mask_document or unmask_text. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the file must have been previously masked) or context for when unmasking is appropriate.

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