aruba_redact_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint as true, indicating safe, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds context: the tool redacts the payload for safety. No contradictions exist, and the description aligns with 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 a single sentence of 10 words, clear and front-loaded. It could include brief parameter descriptions without losing brevity, but overall it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) which may explain return values, so the description need not cover that. However, with 2 parameters and numerous sibling tools, more context on when to redact versus other safety-related tools would improve completeness.

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%, meaning the description must compensate, but it does not describe the 'invoice' object or 'redaction_level' string. The schema provides no details beyond types and a default. Without parameter semantics in the description, an agent lacks guidance on how to use these parameters.

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's purpose: 'Return a redacted invoice payload for safer LLM analysis.' It specifies the verb ('return'), the resource ('redacted invoice payload'), and the goal ('safer LLM analysis'). Among all sibling tools, this is the only one focused on redaction, making it easily distinguishable.

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 implies use before LLM analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like aruba_get_safe_invoice_summary or aruba_extract_invoice_fields. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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